Surveillance theory and ‘that video’
In Consumer Technology after Surveillance Theory, Richard Rogers and Sabine Niederer talk about how consumer technology unsettles old institutional power, possibly bringing a whole new set of problems along. There was the consumer-soldier, for example, who produced the Abu Ghraib photos. Today the Iraqi government is talking to the consumer-prison guard who may have filmed Saddam Hussein’s execution, having “pledged to track down whoever is responsible for (the video).” Like with the Abu Ghraib photos, the content of the scandal wavers between what happened and the fact that someone caught it on camera, depending on who you listen to.
The obvious question here: “If you were an institution being unsettled thusly, how would you feel?”
And seeing as its about time for another dystopian view of the future, what about a world where everything we produce with our video cameras, phones, mic’s, etc., can be traced back to us? Watermarks for everything, not just Academy Award screeners and printers.
If we can’t have privacy, some surveillance theorists argue, we must have accountability, meaning openness on the part of states and corporations. I think I agree, but what happens when that same argument is used against, say, the consumer-activist?
A second bbc article, worth reading, goes into more detail and explains how this kind of horrific reality-TV-for-the-mobile is not new in Iraq (and we knew it wasn’t a novelty here).
Oh and something extra from the first bbc article: “The U.S. military has said it would have handled the execution differently.”