Augmenting justice: Google glass, body cameras, and the politics of wearable technology
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-04-2016-0010 |
| Published date | 13 November 2017 |
| Date | 13 November 2017 |
| Pages | 370-384 |
| Author | Kevin Healey,Niall Stephens |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information & communications technology |
Augmenting justice: Google glass,
body cameras, and the politics of
wearable technology
Kevin Healey
Department of Communication, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
New Hampshire, USA, and
Niall Stephens
Department of Communication Framingham State University, Framingham,
Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to uncoverthe assumptions and concerns driving public debates aboutGoogle
Glass and police body cameras. In doing so, it shows how debatesabout wearable cameras reflect broader
culturaltensions surrounding race and privilege.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper employs a form of critical discourseanalysis to discover
patternsin journalisticcoverage of these two technologies.
Findings –Public response to Glass has been overwhelmingly negative, while response to body cameras
has been positive. Analysisindicates that this contrasting response reflects a consistentpublic concern about
the dynamics of power and privilege in the digital economy. While this concern is well-founded, news
coverage indicates that technologists, policy makers and citizens each hold assumptions about the
inevitabilityand unvarnished beneficence of technology.
Research limitations/implications –Since this qualitativeapproach seeks to discern broad emergent
patterns,it does not employ a quantifiableand reproducible coding schema.
Practical implications –The article concludesby arguing that grassroots action, appropriateregulatory
policy and revitalized systemsof professional journalism are indispensable as the struggle forsocial justice
unfolds in the emergingdigital economy.
Social implications –These debates represent a struggle over what and how people see. Yet public
discourse often glosses overthe disadvantages of technological change, which impacts who is able to amass
social power.
Originality/value –This comparative approach yields unique conceptual insight into debates about
technologiesthat augment ways of seeing.
Keywords Surveillance, Digital culture, Information ethics, Journalism ethics
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Our investigation is motivated by a concern for the panoptic potential of digital media in
general, and wearable cameras in particular. Through a comparativeanalysis, we focus on
two public debates. The first emerged around the consumer product Google Glass; the
second around police body camerasafter the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. The
differences betweenthe cases are instructive. Glass and body cameras are both controversial
because they augment the human gaze, individually and collectively. While this feature
appears to have been the downfall of the now-defunct Glass Explorers program, it appears
to have been the cause of widespreadsupport for police body cameras.
JICES
15,4
370
Received12 April 2016
Revised12 April 2016
Accepted9 June 2016
Journalof Information,
Communicationand Ethics in
Society
Vol.15 No. 4, 2017
pp. 370-384
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-04-2016-0010
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial