Sicherheitsglaeser: Sicherheit Zuerst

(Safetyglasses: Safety First)

Steve Mann, 1997

Artist statement

HUMANISTIC INTELLIGENCE: The `WearComp' and `WearCam' inventions as
`reflectionist' tools of intervention on the `Surveillance Superhighway'



The recent proliferation of video surveillance cameras, interconnected
with high speed computers and central databases is moving us toward a
high-speed `surveillance superhighway', as governments install cameas
throughout entire cities (such as Liverpool and Baltimore) to monitor
citizens in all public areas.  As businesses work alongside
governments to build this superhighway, and expand it into private
areas as well, there is a growing need to develop new methodologies to
question these practices.

THE FIVE HORSEMEN OF THE SS
This exhibit holds a mirror up to the ways in which agents and
representatives of the video surveillance superhighway defend their
infrastructure:

  (1) Secrecy: cameras are often hidden in whole or in part
                 (e.g. in dark domes so that we don't see which way
                 they are pointing or even whether or not a camera is present).
                 The security profession is itself also
                 often not subject to open debate or peer-review;
  (2) Rhetoric: ``public safety'', ``loss prevention'',
                  or ``For YOUR protection you are being videotaped'';
  (3) Constancy: department store clerks don't follow you around with
                   camcorders, but, rather, video surveillance is present in
                   a ``matter of fact'' manner, as part of the architecture's
                   {\em prosthetic territory};
  (4) Appeal to a higher and unquestionable authority: ``I trust you
        and know you would never shoplift, but my manager installed the
        cameras'', or ``We trust you, but our insurance company requires
        the cameras'';
  (5) Criminalization of the critic: ``Why are you so paranoid;
        you're not trying to steal something are you?''.

I refer to these five defenses as the `five horsemen of the
surveillance superhighway', and this seemingly impenetrable argument
formed the inspiration behind a series of performance pieces of the
1980s and 1990s.  The tools of these performance pieces were made by
re-situating the symbols of authority/surveillance (networked
computers, cameras, databases, etc.) in a disturbing and disorienting
fashion, namely the body of the individual, who might otherwise be
completely powerless against a representative of the surveillance
superhighway.  For example, while entering a department store or the
like, I might note that the fire exits are illegally chained shut, and
report this fact by transmitting a live video feed to a network of
friends and relatives looking out for each other's safety.  This
network I call the `SafetyNet', and when challenged by department
store security guards who are quick to point out that photography is
strictly prohibited on their premises (even though video surveillance
is used extensively), I describe my `WearComp' invention (a multimedia
computer I built into ordinary sunglasses) as `safetyglasses' for
`reducing crime'.

This and other `reflectionist' performances attempt to ``mirror'' the
principles of visual surveillance, such as the principle that it often
arises from a higher and unquestionable authority.  Similarly, I might
operate under remote control (in the Stelarc sense) or simply declare
that `My Manager' requires that I wear `safetyglasses' while I am
running errands on company time --- that ``these safetyglasses are
part of my company uniform'', hence shifting the blame for violating
store policy onto a higher and unquestionable authority.  The five
horsemen of the SS are thus dealt with:

  (1) Secrecy: Completely covert embodiments of the WearComp/WearCam
                 invention have been created, and used in places where
                 photography is strictly prohibited, to document
                 video surveillance apparatus together with
                 representatives of organizations responsible for it.
                 Other embodiments included `probably camera',
                 a wearable device constructed to look like a camera,
                 but in such a way that others were not sure which way it
                 was pointing, and `maybe camera', constructed so that
                 others could not readily determine whether or not the
                 device was a camera.  However, while the camera was covert,
                 in the Linz performance, a second visual display was used to
                 "mirror" the www site, so that an individual trying to make
                 eye contact was instead met with a "mirror image" of
                 themselves.
  (2) Rhetoric: The rhetoric of personal safety was used as a
                reflectionism of the rhetoric of public safety.
  (3) Constancy: The devices were wearable, rather than carried,
                 so that it could not be discerned by others,
                 whether they were in actual use or not, at any
                 given time.  The devices were part of my
                 {\em prosthetic territory} (e.g.  clothing).
  (4) Appeal to higher and unquestionable authority:
                     Various performances, such as `My Manager',
                     used the principle of `subservience empowerment'.
  (5) Criminalization of the critic:
                     Inferences pertaining to the possible criminal
                     intent of those who questioned personal safety
                     devices were made, such as
                     possible violations of fire safety,
                     such as fire exits illegally chained
                     shut or fire exits blocked.

In this exhibit, I presented various embodiments of my ``WearComp''
and ``WearCam'' inventions developed as interventionist tools.

Acknowledgements