Comments on: Putting your family under surveillance… for science!

By: JyBy

JyBy — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:50:38 +0000

> Let’s promote a bill in Congress that requires that
> any scientist who wants to videotape every moment of a > child’s life, . . . “for science of course” . . . must
> be him or herself agree to be videotaped every moment
> of his or her own life on life internet feed.

Susan: I don’t get your point, I think that on this Roy is ahead of you: It seems to me that Roy and his wife are also filmed full time, exactly as their child, since the cameras are in all rooms of the house.

By: Susan Allen

Susan Allen — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:31:12 +0000

In Massachusetts this is violates MGL, Chapter 231: Section 85P1/2.
Child performers; contracts; court approval.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/231-85p.5.htm

This means, in Massachusetts, the law requires court approval for videotaping children for public use.

The reason is to stop voyeurs in their tracks. Voyeurs, often scientists, coaches, and members of various religious organizations, will stop at nothing to view even the youngest children at various stages of undress.

This violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Have you considered this child’s right to privacy? What if the child, after he or she grows up, doesn’t appreciate all the surveillance he or she underwent as a child? This parent shouldn’t be photographing his child while the child is in various stages of undress and making the images publicly available. What if some of the viewers are pedophiles? It is highly irresponsible of scientists to videotape babies and children without considering their rights to privacy. Just yesterday, 1-29-2008, Fox News featured a high school coach videotaping children’s atheletic games and children swimming in the pool. What was his real motive? Pedophilia. All filming of children is not pedophilia. However, anyone who ignores a child’s right to privacy should be held accountable to the law.

Here’s an idea. Let’s promote a bill in Congress that requires that any scientist who wants to videotape every moment of a child’s life,
. . . “for science of course” . . . must be him or herself agree to be videotaped every moment of his or her own life on life internet feed.

If a bill such as this passed, the push toward surveillance would dry up and die.

When does the parent/scientist plan to turn the camera off, when when his child is 18?

Voyeurs doth protest too much. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Susan Allen, M.Ed.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:01:36 +0000

Steve Mann’s name was taken in vain several times yesterday, Boris. He’s also out of MIT’s Media Lab, where Roy is based. And I talk about sousveillance every time I talk about mobile activism – will be giving that talk in Amsterdam on Friday… :-)

By: Boris Anthony

Boris Anthony — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:51:04 +0000

neat.
re: interacting with so much video footage: he’s standing on the shoulders of others of course, including researchers at MIT and UofT (cyborg students of Steve Mann, who predated justin.tv by yeeeears, developed similar video scrubbing solutions after recording their everyday movements, out and about in the world, for years. They also pontificated largely on the legal ramifications of all this, privacy etc. Mann even coined the term sous-veillance.)

re: language development in children: this is by far more interesting to me. I suspect one day we’ll have “scientific proof” that what we call “reality” is just so much neuro-linguistic programming… :)

(sorry about the drive-by comment, Ethan. ;)