Some call it sousveillance. Some call it the participatory panopticon. John Naughton gives it maybe the most evocative and memorable name, “Little Brother.”
Those who describe this emerging phenomenon of ordinary people in society keeping watch over others—especially as a way of guarding against authoritarian “Big Brother” oppression—usually seem optimistic, even sanguine, about both its likelihood and its success.
But what if sousveillance, or whatever else you want to call it, gets tamped down before it has any chance of becoming a long-lasting, powerful force for freedom and transparency? What if our supposedly open, democratic Western governments will not allow Little Brother to keep his eyes and ears open?
In the continuing wake of 9/11, it may not be as easy as was once thought for something like the participatory panopticon to have its intended effect.
That’s what John Naughton warns of in a column titled: “The police should take note: little brother’s watching you”.
Writing about this video of police in London attacking an innocent onlooker (and apparently causing his death), Naughton says:
The assault on Tomlinson will not spark off a riot, but nobody should underestimate the outrage it has generated. And from the instant the video footage—shot by an American bystander using his digital still camera—appeared on the Guardian website, it was clear that we had reached a pivotal moment. Consumer technology had given citizens a serious tool for recording how policemen behave.
It also brought to mind the case of Blair Peach, the young New Zealand teacher who, on a demonstration 30 years ago, was clubbed by a police officer and died the day after of his injuries. Nobody was ever tried for the assault and the coroner recorded a verdict of “death by misadventure”.
There was no “citizen journalism” at the time of the Peach case. Nobody had a cameraphone or a digital camcorder, because they hadn’t been invented. And the incident wasn’t recorded by any press photographer or film crew. So the cop who attacked the young teacher escaped scot-free.
But then Naughton adds:
The police have two choices. Accept that digital technology will make them accountable for their actions or try to control the technology. In any normal society there would be no decision to be made. But since 9/11 the threat of global terrorism has given the state—and its security apparatus—carte blanche to take whatever measures it deems necessary.
Will Big Brother simply swat Little Brother aside, like a cow tail swishing away a fly? Or will the many determined sousveillant flies keep on multiplying and present an irrepressible force to maintain and expand openness, helping our world to ultimately become a truly transparent society?
IEET Blog