been an explosion of video surveillance in
public spaces without any real public debate
about the pros and cons. That’s remarkable.
You’d think there would be a referendum‘
somewhere.” '
Siegel, who doesn’t fully oppose public
surveillance, offers a short list of policy
suggestions for ethical surveillance practices:
All video surveillance zones and cameras
should be listed on a public register that can be
easily accessed at a library or on the Internet.
Access to surveillance data should be strictly
limited, and material that records no criminal
acts should be kept only temporarily. An
individual in each community should actively
assure that the regulations are enforced. In
addition, every surveillance Zone should
include visible warning signs.
One place where the presence of surveillance
is very clearly advertised is the Remote ‘
Lounge in-New York City. This trendy bar
is using video surveillance in an unexpected
and amusing way. The Remote Lounge is
packed with video cameras and monitors,
and the entrance features a brightly-lit sign:
“Upon entering these premises’ your name,
image, voice, and likeness may be broadcast
live over the Internet.” Customers must agree
to give up their rights to privacy while in the
bar. Inside, customers use remote control
video cameras and monitors to spy on other
customers, whether they’re aware ofit or not.
When customers think about being -vatched
by others, “they’re taken abacks by the lack of
privacy,” says co-owner Keven Cent-anni. But
when they themselves watch other customers,
“they feel empowered.” Clearly, for customers
at the Remote Lounge, being watched has
its discomforts, its reassurances, even its
thrills—just as it does in the real world, where
surveillance surrounds us all.