On truth and the ways it's seen

As a longtime opponent of video surveillance, i tend to keep my eyes on the proliferation of the technologies that ease its intrusion into our lives. I've even commented on this from time to time in my postings here. What i'm really looking for, though, is the ways it can be abused. My concern with privacy issues is not, in and of itself, of interest to the average man on the street. What i can point out to said MOTS, though, is the ways that this technology can be used and misused to harm them.

One of the first responses to this concern on my part is the "If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to fear". My usual response to this is pretty simple: What you're doing right now might not be wrong, but that doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Nor does it mean that you'll have a say in it changing.

Another concern has been brought to my attention by an article on the Memory Hole.

What happens when the technology, increasingly digital, is vulnerable to manipulation?

How do you know that what you are "seen" doing on camera, which can be offered as proof of your wrongdoing, is what you actually did. The example in the article above is a small thing, clumsily done. Even still, there's not much to indicate to the casual observer that something is amiss, and if the job were done better there'd be next to no way to detect the fakery. Witness crowd scenes in hollywood movies.

So, if you're not doing anything wrong, why does the camera show differently?

Comments !