"Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices": Reading Response

I feel that our installation work does not fit with the idea of surveillance or sousveillance. The idea of watching and taking in information about the user is not we want to accomplish. We do not intend to film or capture anyone with the camera; the camera is aimed at the floor, and its use is only to establish whether a foot has entered the camera’s field of vision. We simply want to teach, empower and possibly brighten someone’s day. If we were to include this type of technology into our installation, it would alter the public environment so that users of our installation would be more cautious and apprehensive. The atmosphere would lose its fun and engaging atmosphere in favour of a judgmental, uneasy feeling caused by the cameras.

If our installation adopted a wearable or portable technology, it would create an interesting outcome. In theory, any footstep taken could produce a different note, and not just the user’s own feet; others within the camera’s surroundings could produce a sound as well. In that regard, there could be a sense of fear or alarm from the general public as to being captured on camera, as many do not like that feeling of being secretly filmed. But as well, our installation in a portable sense could bring out a fun-loving, easy-going attitude that most people do not show in public.

In another sense, our installation is like other performances in which uncertainty is prevalent. There are many outcomes that we cannot possibly foresee, but that also creates an unpredictability regarding the limits of our installation. We encourage breaking the boundaries, and I feel that is how you truly learn about something. Our aim to take learning outside the classroom fits well with this unpredictability.