Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't exist without them. For one thing, teenage fights are filmed by bystanders and replayed/posted on the Internet. Pictures of women in compromised positions (children even) are passed around schools. Cyberbullying (even though I hate that term) is easier and more anonymous because of these tools.
If you're the victim, it can feel as if you are fighting the entire world.
THAT's why I think someone would be well within their rights to take swift action to halt something like that in its tracks.
BTW, I'm certain it's the reason why police risk the backlash associated with taking cameras away from third-parties vs. having their actions armchair-quarterbacked by legions of second-guessers.
>Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't exist without them.
But all of those things existed even before the means to record them. People would fight. Women would be spied on. Children would be bullied. But taking pictures of people in a bathroom is not something that was common or accepted before, apparently, yesterday. We've had the means to record the bathrooms for quite a long time now, and it doesn't happen. When it does happen, it makes the news.
The author wasn't describing a demented pervert hiding in the shadows to see you naked, he was describing many people at a tech conference not hiding the fact that they were taking pictures of each other in the bathroom. That doesn't happen.
It was never stated that the each of the men at the urinals was overtly taking photos of the next. The author has no way of knowing whether or not the men wearing the glasses and blinking were actually taking photos. The way I read it, that was kind of the point.
It's this inconspicuous nature that makes Glass so concerning. Personally, the stories I've heard about cameras in bathrooms often involved trying to conceal the camera. It's quite uncommon for someone to whip out a DSLR at a urinal and start snapping photos of the man next to him. If it were to happen, it would be pretty obvious. With Glass, all you have is a person in a bathroom wearing glasses and blinking.
I think the worry is that once the cameras become commonplace, it'll make the barrier that much lower. Once the barrier is lowered, more people will feel like there is little harm in crossing it.
Would there, in fact, be as much harm in crossing it?
What I mean is.. if societal norms change such that, say, nude photos are no longer considered important - because everyone has nude photos online, after all - is it still as much of a problem?
Most of the psychological issues here are highly cultural.
Maybe for you. But I don't think that someone else should have that power over me. Once you start allowing that barrier to be crossed, you're inviting all sorts of other incursions on what we consider to be personal liberties.
Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't exist without them. For one thing, teenage fights are filmed by bystanders and replayed/posted on the Internet. Pictures of women in compromised positions (children even) are passed around schools. Cyberbullying (even though I hate that term) is easier and more anonymous because of these tools.
If you're the victim, it can feel as if you are fighting the entire world.
THAT's why I think someone would be well within their rights to take swift action to halt something like that in its tracks.
BTW, I'm certain it's the reason why police risk the backlash associated with taking cameras away from third-parties vs. having their actions armchair-quarterbacked by legions of second-guessers.