Do you check your surroundings before you decide to quickly pick your nose, or adjust your underwear nowadays? We are increasingly aware of possible surveillance around us. Many authorities assume their legal right to place surveillance cameras, often as a measure to provide better security. In some countries, encouraging everyoneâ€™s participation to keep an eye on the suspicious people or objects may be necessary for the common good of the society. In some places, the signs of surveillance may be used as a measure to prevent people from misbehaving.
In Korea, a country technically still in truce, thereâ€™s a dedicated phone number, 111, to report spies (North Korean or industrial), terrorists, or international criminals. The rewards for reporting spies or spy ships are also clearly written in the commonly found posters: Approximately 65kEur for a spy, 1.5 times more for a spy ship. Having the dedicated phone number for turning spies in is a practice with a long history, which provides immediate ways to act for those who are willing and have access to voice calls.
An ad placed in buses in London encouraging people to be alert about the â€œsuspiciousâ€. Less direct than the Korean approach, but it at least stopped me to think about what would be appropriately suspicious enough to tell the bus staff or police.
In Helsinki, you may see stickers very visibly indicating the existence of surveillance cameras even though you donâ€™t see the camera itself on taxis or in the airport. The camera icon without any written description implies that people would understand the meaning of the icon being the function of surveillance cameras.
The more typical signs possibly built with the intention of amplifying the effect of having the surveillance cameras are easily found in UK. The first sign is from London, second from Whistable.
Buildings with security companies behind them often display the company logos on the building. Perhaps the reputation of the security company among the petty criminals in the neighborhood is something we would need when selecting which company to turn to.
In buses or metro stations in Tokyo, this sign featuring big eyes are often found. It is issued by the Tokyo police department, read â€œWe wonâ€™t let evil escapeâ€ â€“ a message very indirect, but probably functions as a reassurance of the policeâ€™s presence.
In addition to the formally established surveillance mechanisms, the emerging form of surveillance is enabled by the majority of individuals carrying recording and communication devices â€“ as already discussed 3 years ago in South Korea over the â€˜dog poop girlâ€™ incident.
Leaving the debate on the good and the evil of the citizen journalism enabled by the proliferation of digital tools aside for now â€“ I am wondering how peopleâ€™s public behavior may be influenced by the implicit potential of people near you reporting your bad or good deeds. â€˜Nearbyâ€™ people may be those who share the same physical space and time or communication channels like a chat session or a wifi hub with you at the same time. With digital devicesâ€™ increasing ability to capture contextual information such as location coordinates, reconstructing a coherent scene or a story with digital data collected by hundreds of people will become relatively easier as well.
Surprisingly a lot of people see mobile phone as a useful tool to capture evidences to prevent lies or fraud and to be used against future disputes in our recent work hosting a mobile phone design competition called Open Studio. On the other hand, the rejection for adoption may be well on the way as well. During the first trial of Lifeblog prototype in 2002, some people showed the fear of collecting the comprehensive personal mobile data including their whereabouts. It was the fear of giving up the protection of ambiguity, the plausible deniability when the usage of technology becomes widely known and adopted.
That leaves another interesting question: How would people drop out of, or at least minimize their digital traces and minimize contributing to create othersâ€™? We are probably not expecting stickers and badges showing â€œthis person does NOT have camerasâ€ or â€œthis person will NOT use camerasâ€. One of the memorable Ubicomp conference talks was on the interesting concept of creating capture-resistant environment, preventing camera phones to take photos by overexposing photos attempted in the region covered by this technology. While I am sure there are certain types of places this technology would be very useful, I do have my doubts if there would ever be any technology successfully controlling peopleâ€™s digital behaviors.