Talk:Sousveillance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (December 2007)

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 22 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Contents

[edit] Invalid

This is page appears to have been submitted by an author trying to legitimize his own lexicon. Observe links to "EyeTap" and "glaw", and a smartmobs link talking about Steve Mann. I don't think that this term (although it sounds like it could be legit) has meaning to anyone other than the submission author. BIAS WARNING: I have worked with Steve Mann. Maneesh

[edit] Valid

Wikipedia is becoming a cited primary source. It is unfortunate that mcuh content can be generated by page feeds that feed off page feeds. Inverse surveillance is a valid field of study, and it should not be coopted by Steve Mann. His semi-autistic ability to scower the web spreading lies and exagerated versions of his research leads to legitimization of it, i've even seen a clueless reporter write stories based on false statements steve made.

[edit] AfD

Hi, Maneesh. What is it about Steve Mann that rubs you the wrong way? "sousveillance" is a new term, but one coined by Mann and not by the authors of the WP article about it. Is in circulation in some relevant communities; not sure what counts as 'legit' around here. +sj+ 09:04, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
Oh, and keep if you ask me. Term has appeared in numerous essays and published articles by Mann, and its etymology and use are interesting to those who care about certain niche areas of privacy. +sj+ 09:04, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd never heard of this neologism either, but it traces back to at least 2001 [1] and has over 6000 google hits from a variety of sources. Rossami 21:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I generally dislike neologisms, but this one seems to have gained enuf currency that I have to vote keep, if my vote must be based on the reason given above for appearing on VfD. However, if I can vote based on it being basically just an unusally wordy dic def w/etymology, I'd vote delete (some form of that third 'unexplored issues' paragraph could probably be tacked onto many of the previously deleted dic defs) (I also question it's accuracy about secret phone call recording--it's illegal in my state). Niteowlneils 00:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this neologism becomes accepted into the general lexicon, it will find its way back in later. If the term remains ideosyncratic, then we have a useless self-indulgence in the encyclopedia. Jeeves 01:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: term in wide enough use. [2] tipped the scales for me. Although Steve Mann is certainly a very dedicated self promoter, other people seem to have picked up on his neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • That said, the article needs work to make it more specific -- while the article speaks in grandiose generalities, the only sense of "sousveillance" that people have picked up on is the act of looking back at security cameras. "Rheingold notes..." -- pff, who cares what Howard Rheingold says. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's thousands of articles, in a variety of languages, that use the term. Although only in use since 1995, there was recently an [3] International Workshop on Inverse Surveillance, and a even many large companies (including Microsoft, no less!) is using the term. Next year there's an International Symposium on Inverse Surveillance, and there is a huge industry growing around an activity that falls directly in line with this word. -- Glogger 12:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, this vote is User:Glogger's 1st edit on the wiki and as of now, this user has less than 20 edits. --Hemanshu 20:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a common enough term now, and whether Steve coins a lot of terms is not particularly relevant. The term describes a particular power relationship for which there is no other available term. Even inverse surveillance doesn't cover all of the ramifications. I think Maneesh has personal issues here. And yes, some of us happen to like Howard Rheingold -- JasonNolan
    • For the record, this vote is User:JasonNolan's 4th edit on the wiki. --Hemanshu 20:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, I've been on much longer than Hemanshu. I tend to use wikipedia in my teaching, and send students here to use it and many no doubt add to it, but I don't add much to it aIl. Why? Because I don't feel the need. Every time I look at/for things on wikipedia, they tend to be pretty solid. Why bother posting just for the sake of it. You will note as well that I made up my account more recently than 4 posts would suggest. What point are you trying to make? Something like the fact that the validity of content is predicated on opinions of people who make lots of changes? That is an interesting notion to unpack. Ok. I'll go and make some more.. .at some point to make you happy. User:JasonNolan
  • Keep. Cribcage 01:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a relevant cultural phenomenon, although this article could use a little NPOV tweaking... Alcarillo 20:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

[edit] Propaganda

One thing I'm sure, is that sousveillance is not mainstream French. It must be some kind of word that some political/philosophical group is trying to push, using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. David.Monniaux 16:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

to me an act of propaganda is merely a voice of advocacy. the truth is that to communicate, one needs to participate in a media enviroment littered with the remnants of prior advertising. With this, memory has become the subconscious battleground of personhood. (Ok, this is sounding flowery, but it is the way I think and unfortunate to the reader, overinfluenced by that nutty writter named tolstoy). With the introduction of surveillence cameras, the inherent need to watch and control is becoming pervasive and ubiquitous. Storage in digital data will necesitate improved odds on data searching, with the tendency to use all anthropometric data towards commerce. Such trends have to reconsile man's need for order outside the eternal trend towards conflict. How order is achieved is the searching to verify the prior social contracts. That which is natural needs to be described: to have systems overlooking our daily activities is becoming part of an external memory. we are a barcoded constallation of events and actions, monitored and counted by machine. How we function inside the mechanizations of our new recorded parralled selves is the language of this overheated and evaporating social contract. the higher order evolution of ethical conduct, which is formed in adolescence and contributes to the natural stimulation of the pre frontal and frontal cortex of the brain, is being replaced by these mechnizations, and as we become subject to a secure and reasoned surveillence for our own protection, we stop stimulating our frontal cortex and fundamentally change how we function neurologically. so by not countersurveillencing, and maintaining freedom of thought by control of our sensory input, we erode ethically and give up precious responsibity towards a dependent and hopeless acceptence of a digital fate that takes out the moral perogative of being. As Piaget demonstrated the crucial steps of achieving neurologic steps towards an reasoned adulthood, so now steve mann is documenting for future generations how one is to maintain ones architecture of one, that is separate, and can form independent judgements and insights, outside the surveillenced world. when we stop singing together, laughing together, experiencing family and friendship, a loniness exit from frontal lobe functioning is replaced with the eyecandy of the tv trance of surveillence. Societies that are like the extended family, or the small village are natural to being human, and as the class of 1786 at the ecole polytechnique would agree, it is with natural man that we should form future bodies of free persons. not the anonymous of city ants in a hill, but the natural flesh and soul of persons embodied in protective humanistic intelligence empowing devices. Sousavaillence is not self promotion, it is a treatise of human freedom that confronts Humanity's recurrent nightmare of escape from freedom. It is easy to realize Steve Mann's mathematical invention of the comparametric equations, which is also an invention that describes how cameras work: but how humans percieve in an increasingly surveillenced world is more difficult to describe touching upon social sciences, developmental psychology, neurology, economics, political science, and philosophy. The basis of Sousavaillence has been greatly influenced by Paul Virilio and Sartre: but more importantly, the life long cyborglog is the key to empiric data defining many phenomena described by Foucault. The use of the cyborglog has medical uses: in our research with the elderly, we are developing a system to document activity of daily living in the setting of neurodegenerative illness. All stages of life and state of brain function at each stage needs to be anticipated to complete a life long cyborglog. user:cyborgopoulos...aka stef pantagisImage:PIC00083.jpg

[edit] Legality

"Audio sousveillance is allowed in most states, and by Federal law, but audio surveillance is illegal in most states."

Is there any way this sentence, and others scattered throughout the article, might be sort of internationalized in order to adopt a more neutral perspective? Wally 23:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Preservation of histories of articles potentially to be merged

I didn't merge (text and history) these two articles, although i believe that is called for. Reversing the history merge would require great effort, and i am unwilling to assert that the issue is that clear. However, this method of preserving the separate histories is necessary for the recovery, after merging, of the changes made in a given edit, since the edits get interleaved in the history merge, and since the only method WP provides for determining the effect of an edit is comparison with the previous version. The following preserves the information of which version was the previous version. (The following will probably need supplementation with history edits done to each page between this writing and the merge, once the issue is clear enough to take the effectively irreversible step.)
--Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

  • History of Inverse surveillance to 04 Oct 6
    • 13:44, 2004 Sep 19 ZeroOne m (Category:Surveillance)
    • 01:55, 2004 Sep 19 Morven m (Remove reference to "sniggle" (invented word only used on one website))
    • 20:38, 2004 Sep 17 Shoujun
    • 15:21, 2004 Sep 17 Robartin (fixed a wiki link)
    • 15:19, 2004 Sep 17 Robartin (wikified)
    • 05:53, 2004 Sep 11 Poccil
    • 05:52, 2004 Sep 11 Poccil
    • 05:40, 2004 Sep 11 Glogger
    • 02:39, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82 (added link to NYC sousveillance crew)
    • 20:03, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger (correct spell of casino)
    • 19:30, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger
    • 19:29, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger m (added image depicting inverse surveillance)
    • 05:20, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
    • 05:19, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
    • 05:18, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
    • 12:04, 2004 Jun 25 Glogger
    • 03:24, 2004 Jun 23 24.33.73.209
    • 03:07, 2004 Jun 15 Fredrik m (rm cleanup msg)
    • 22:43, 2004 Jun 3 Template namespace initialisation script
    • 01:03, 2004 May 18 65.49.77.82
    • 23:29, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
    • 10:38, 2004 May 17 Jasonnolan m (removed 'mock-French' since it is obviously intended to be an English word)
    • 05:42, 2004 May 16 67.121.95.164
    • 15:55, 2004 May 15 The Anome (Steve Mann, who coined the term, describes it as "watchful vigilance from underneath".)
    • 15:49, 2004 May 15 The Anome (particularly those who are generally the subject of surveillance.)
    • 15:48, 2004 May 15 The Anome (rewrote first sentence)
    • 15:40, 2004 May 15 The Anome (fixing that link)
    • 15:38, 2004 May 15 The Anome (moving the links to the end)
    • 15:31, 2004 May 15 The Anome (mock-French)
    • 15:28, 2004 May 15 The Anome ({{msg:cleanup}})
    • 21:47, 2004 Apr 29 Francs2000 (rm vfd boilerplate)
    • 16:22, 2004 Apr 28 David.Monniaux (neologism)
    • 16:21, 2004 Apr 28 65.49.77.82
    • 16:19, 2004 Apr 28 65.49.77.82
    • 07:13, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 07:08, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 06:49, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 06:42, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 06:26, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 06:15, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
    • 08:16, 2004 Apr 22 Maneesh
    • 19:06, 2004 Apr 21 Wmahan m (alot->much, priviledge->privilege)
    • 00:29, 2004 Mar 30 Stevertigo m
    • 08:18, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
    • 08:16, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
    • 08:01, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
    • 07:59, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
    • 07:52, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
    • 07:47, 2004 Mar 15 Dysprosia m (fmt)
    • 07:45, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
  • History of Sousveillance to 04 Oct 6
    • 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 Leif
    • 21:23, 2004 Oct 4 Poccil (Removed unnecessary picture)
    • 19:29, 2004 Oct 4 Poccil
    • 13:43, 2004 Sep 19 ZeroOne m (Category:Surveillance)
    • 02:16, 2004 Sep 18 130.58.225.205 (NYC sousveillance - spelling errors)
    • 02:46, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82
    • 02:45, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82 (added link to NYC sousveillance crew)
    • 05:05, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82
    • 05:05, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82
    • 05:03, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82 (added link to Britt Blasser's "Over Sousveillance" article.)
    • 01:53, 2004 Sep 5 DimaDorfman m (hide wiki artifacts)
    • 11:47, 2004 Aug 24 195.157.146.246 (typo correction)
    • 12:33, 2004 Jun 8 Paranoid m (a link added)
    • 12:31, 2004 Jun 8 Paranoid m (Moved the image to the left side.)
    • 23:32, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
    • 23:31, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
    • 23:31, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
    • 04:25, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 04:22, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 04:01, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:59, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:58, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:55, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:53, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:50, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:49, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 03:41, 2004 May 17 Glogger
    • 15:50, 2004 May 15 The Anome (moved to "Inverse_surveillance")

[edit] The Light of Other Days

The Light of Other Days involves a world with a complete lack of privacy. The cameras are a little different, but it's basically the same idea. I can't figure out how to tie it into this (or a better related) article, though. - Omegatron 02:03, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality in Question?

I fail to see why this article is flags with a NPOV warning. Given the rapid changes in video camera technology and public surveillance, the term "sousveillance" certainly seems like a useful distinction.

If the problem is that this term has not entered the mainstream lexicon then edit the article to say so. Funkyj 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2c

I don't think a neologism like "sousveillance" should be allowed to be used as an article title on a technological / sociological / social scientific subject.

I think the reference to the Situationists in the graphic is kind of spurious, although I can see the clear relevance of the material here to modern post Situationist theory.

Most of the content is interesting but it does violate NPOV to some extent in that it isn't sufficiently impartially grounded in it's relationship to the existing theories and practice of surveillance.

I wouldn't like to see it deleted, but a clearer distinction being made between what's subjective theory and what's objective social scientific fact. Wikipedia can't just be a place to post random theses!

[edit] My 2cents too

I think this article needs heavy, heavy cleanup. (Embarassingly, I added a vote to "keep" earlier, before realizing that the vote was over above, now reverted.) The article is too biased and really needs help.

71.110.157.153 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It also comes across as very difficult to read, The language used seems...odd, somehow. The article is written in a way that seemed rather confusing and overwhelming to me, as a reader with no prior knowledge in the area. I'm adding a "confusing" template to the page for the time being, though it has other problems, such as the length of the introduction (which probably contributes to the confusion by rambling instead of simply giving a short, succinct definition of the term), and context issues. Reveilled 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pick a term and stick with it

This article seems to vacillate randomly between "inverse surveillance" and "sousveillance" very confusingly. *Are* they the same thing? If so, then just put one in brackets at the start, then use the other one consistently. If not, then make the distinctions clearer. Stevage 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical Sousveillance

Clinical sousveillance content has been forked from clinical surveillance and is up for deletion (WP: PROD) under WP:NOR (were WP:FRINGE an actual policy this would be the reason). If you have anything to say about this, please say it there by June 1. Editing help with the clinical surveillance article is also welcome. Museumfreak 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnocentric Bias

I agree with wally in that the article needs a more international perspective. At the moment it's very centred on an american POV epspecially with relation to legal issues.

most obviously with this sentence, which also is irrelevent to the section it's in.

"In America, audio sousveillance is allowed in most states, and by U.S. Federal law."

___

In my opinion there is also a clear distinction between 'inverse surveillance' and 'sousveillance'. At least in the way it is used in my local area. Inverse surveillance refers to the act of recording authority figures and people involved in surveillance as an activist tool or legal protection. Sousveillance is an act of community based recording from a first person POV with no specific agenda - well that's local usage anyway, may not be that correct from a wider perspective - my 2 groats anyway.

"or passengers to photograph taxicab drivers." The driver being a worker hired by the passenger, how is this sousveillance?

[edit] Canadian ≠ American

Interesting that previous commentators keep denouncing an "American" POV, when Steve Mann is a Canadian teaching/researching at the University of Toronto, a Canadian university. Bellagio99 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camera phone or videocam + YouTube/Flicker = Sousveillance

I've added some sentences to the article making this point. Bellagio99 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary improvements

As a random person who stumbled across this page I've done what I can to tidy it, but there are some glaring faults which I don't dare fix myself.

"Even today's personal sousveillance technologies like camera phones and weblogs tend to build a sense of community"

What's this a contrast with? The future's personal sousveillance technologies?

"Classy's Kitchen"

Who is Classy? What is his/her kitchen? This appears to be missing a cross-reference.

"Beyond the political or breaching of hierarchical structure explored in academia, the more rapidly emerging discourse on sousveillance within industry is "personal sousveillance", namely the recording of an activity by a participant in the activity. In this sense, the Rodney King video was captured serendipitously by a citizen participating in a civil society. There was no political motive (i.e. the officers who were beating King were not targeted), and the material was captured more serendipitously."

This is within a section entitled "Personal sousveillance" which has already given a different definition. What's going on here? "In this sense" - in what sense? Is "civil society" an "activity"? The straightforward reading of this is that the Rodney King video was captured by someone participating in the beating: i.e. King or one of the policemen. "More serendipitously" than what? And is it necessary to use "serendipitously" twice in two consecutive sentences? I would redact but the only obvious redaction which leaves something that makes sense is to delete the entire paragraph.

"As the technologies get smaller and easier to use, the capture, recording, and playback of everyday life gets that much easier. For example..."

The stuff which follows is, as written, more obviously an example of people not liking being recorded than of recording becoming easier.

"The "Sensecam" works this way, as does Gordon Bell's project at Microsoft"

What is this "Sensecam"? Who is Gordon Bell?

"Microsoft is also exploring cyborglogs"

"Also" in addition to whom? There is no obvious anaphor, because two paragraphs have passed since the mention of "cyborglogging", but if you ignore those paragraphs then the most obvious anaphor is Gordon Bell's project at Microsoft.

"to subvert the Panoptic gaze"

Undefined proper noun. At least, I presume from the capitalisation that it's a proper noun.

"Sousveillance activism as a form of inverse surveillance"

Does any of the contents of this section actually correspond to the section's title? I certainly can't find an answer in it to the implicit question "Is sousveillance activism a form of inverse surveillance?" It seems to be an assortment of examples of unspecified sousveillance, inverse surveillance and inadequately referenced summary of related but tangential academic work.

"However, this designated day focuses only on hierarchical sousveillance, whereas there are a number of groups around the world working on combining the two forms of sousveillance."

What are these "two forms"? Up to this point at least four subsets of sousveillance have been discussed, but there's been no suggestion that any group of them form a complete classification.

"There is a certain irony in the blind exploring the all seeing eye of the Panopticon."

Another undefined proper noun. It's also referred to non-existent anaphor, because all we've been told is that these blind poets are "making a cyborglog". In what sense is that "exploring the all seeing eye"?

"the Panoptic God"

By now the end of this article is starting to look rather NPOV, as though written by someone trying to create acceptance of their neologisms.

Judging by the history most of this page is the work of two authors, so I hope you can take these comments on board as feedback from someone with an external perspective who can't read between the lines as you can. 81.39.195.238 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)