Undoubtedly, the smartphone is among the most remarkable of inventions, certainly of the modern era, and quite possibly of all time. It places unprecedented amounts of information at our fingertips, allows us to communicate across vast distances, and grants ordinary people access to tools that only governments, corporations, and media organizations once possessed.
Nevertheless, this technology, like every other, comes at a cost. The smartphone, you see, comes with a high-definition camera. As such, it has inaugurated a revolution that has transformed everyday life into, potentially, a theatrical experience in which fellow citizens are reduced to objects, to involuntary participants in someone else’s content creation. This has undermined trust, increased interpersonal conflict, and even led to varying degrees of violence.
It is for these reasons, and not, ultimately, some abstract “right to privacy” (as significant as this is), that we need now to advance the discussion on the pursuit of anti-surveillance technologies.
Human beings are embodied persons. In the “liberal democracies” of the West, there exists a diverse range of metaphysical views on the nature of a human person. Yet the institutions, laws, and customs of the West, particularly the modern West, are arranged to express the idea that human beings, irrespective of the contingent characteristics that individuate them, are subjects that, as such, possess equal dignity, equal rights. The smartphone camera has been used by some private actors as an instrument of the objectification of others.
More exactly, we are embodied beings. We perceive, we cognize, through our bodies, by way of appropriating space in all of our activities. The smartphone camera threatens to obscure this reality, particularly when it is in the hands of a “content creator,” and an especially abrasive one at that. The person filmed becomes raw material for content. The individual becomes an object to be captured, displayed, commented upon, monetized, ridiculed, praised, or exploited. The camera encourages a subtle but powerful shift in perception. Instead of asking, "Who is this person?" the question becomes, "What kind of content can this person provide?"
The rise of "prank videos," public confrontations, viral humiliation clips, and social-media vigilantism illustrate this transformation vividly. In countless cases, the individual holding the camera is not a passive observer. He is an active participant in the interaction. Indeed, the presence of the camera often creates the interaction in the first place.
Now, as it should go without saying, when people are treated this way, and it becomes normalized for others to treat people like this, distrust increases, passions are enflamed, and violence can, and has, erupted. The obnoxious, emboldened content creator is not an innocent, neutral bystander. He or she is an antagonist, quite possibly an aggressor.
If the content creator or “citizen journalist” provokes a violent response, that person must assume responsibility for having contributed to it.
Violence rarely emerges from nowhere. It is more of a spectrum than a single event. Violence often begins with violations of personal space, disrespect, provocation, intimidation, or social humiliation. Human beings are territorial. We possess invisible boundaries that govern interpersonal interactions. Closing distance upon another person while filming him against his wishes is, at the very least, a precipitator of hot, overt violence.
The camera operator exerts pressure. He creates conditions under which the other person may feel cornered, threatened, embarrassed, or exploited. In many cases, the camera functions as a weapon of social power. It grants the holder the ability to document, edit, narrate, and distribute an encounter while denying those same powers to the subject being recorded.
This asymmetry can generate resentment, distrust, and hostility.
The development of anti-surveillance technologies is imperative. They should not apply to police body cameras, home ring cameras, car cameras, and surveillance for businesses, which are all legitimate security systems. They should be meant only for the purpose of restoring a measure of balance between private actors who wish to record and those private actors who do not wish to be recorded.
Several possibilities deserve exploration.
One possibility involves wearable infrared emitters. Invisible to the naked eye, such devices could create patterns of light that overwhelm smartphone camera sensors while remaining unobtrusive to human observers. Similar concepts have already been demonstrated experimentally.
Another possibility involves clothing fabrics designed to confuse facial recognition systems. Researchers have developed patterns and materials that reduce the effectiveness of automated identification technologies. Future versions could be made more practical and aesthetically appealing.
A third possibility would be smartphone operating systems that permit users to broadcast encrypted "do not record" signals. Nearby devices could be required by law or convention to recognize these signals and automatically blur or obscure protected individuals.
More advanced technologies might employ miniature directed light systems capable of selectively degrading image quality when a camera is pointed at the wearer. Others might incorporate machine-learning systems that identify active smartphone cameras and respond automatically, including making voices less distinctive or more distorted.
Whether any particular proposal proves feasible remains to be seen. Yet the broader principle deserves serious consideration, for the smartphone camera has given rise to a new form of power, the power, against another’s will, to transform his or her image into permanent digital property. Just as civilization has always had to regulate other forms of power from times past, so too does it need to do the same with the power of the smartphone camera.
In case I wasn’t clear: The objective for which I’m arguing is not the abolition of all recording. Cameras can document crimes, preserve memories, and hold institutions accountable. Rather, the objective is to restore a measure of reciprocity and respect to human interactions.
The development of anti-surveillance technologies would serve as one crucial step toward doing just this.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member