Forbes recently published an opinion piece that I co-authored with Dr. Steve Mann, who founded the MIT Wearable Computing Lab and is widely known as the father of wearable computing. Titled "Body Cameras For Police Officers; What About For Ordinary Citizens?," our thesis is that body-worn cameras for police officers are only half the solution to the problem of violence between police and citizens. Video recording is a proven tool for solving and deterring crime. But placing cameras in the hands of cops alone creates an imbalance of information, and hence an imbalance of power--power that can too easily be misapplied or abused.
The other half of the solution is "sousveillance," a word Dr. Mann coined to describe recordings made by individual citizens. Available sousveillance devices include the EyeTap device that Dr. Mann wears, the Spaceglasses produced by his company, Meta, as well as Google Glass and its various competitors. More widespread access to, and use of, such devices would result in a more complete and democratized record of potentially criminal activity.
We conclude our article with this thought:
Indeed, although we did not set out to make a connection between the First Amendment right to gather information and the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the parallels between them are too stark to ignore. In each case, those advocating the liberties provided by the amendment argue that individual citizens should carry devices that give them power to deter other citizens and government officials alike from unlawfully infringing the individual’s liberty. Query, however, which device is more likely to effectively accomplish that goal, and with the least amount of unintended negative consequence? Perhaps an “open carry” movement for video cameras is in order.
The full article is available here.
Click below to retweet this:
Video cameras and guns both deter crime--but cameras don't kill. Do we need an “open carry” movement for cameras? http://t.co/Uli8IEhmUE
— Brian Wassom (@bdwassom) December 24, 2014
