Skip to main content
Wearables and Lifelogging: The Socioethical Implications
IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine (2015)
  • Katina Michael, University of Wollongong

In 2009, M.G. Michael and I presented the plenary article “Teaching Ethics in Wearable Computing: The Social Implications of the New ‘Veillance’” [1]. It was the first time that the terms surveillance, dataveillance, sousveillance, and überveillance were considered together at a public gathering [2]. We were pondering the intensification of a state of überveillance through increasingly pervasive technologies that can provide details from a big-picture satellite view right down to the smallest-common-denominator embedded-sensor view. Veiller means “to watch,” coming from the Latin vigilare, stemming from vigil, which means to be “watchful.” The prefixes sur, data, sous, and über alter the “watching” perspective and meaning. What does it mean to be watched by a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera, to watch another, to watch oneself? Roger Clarke [3], Steve Mann [4], and M.G. Michael [5] have defined three “types” of watching in the sociotech literature.

  • wearables,
  • lifelogging,
  • sousveillance,
  • uberveillance,
  • dataveillance,
  • RFID,
  • autonomy,
  • machines,
  • robots,
  • polysocial reality,
  • CCTV,
  • cameras,
  • views
Publication Date
April 1, 2015
Citation Information
Katina Michael. "Wearables and Lifelogging: The Socioethical Implications" IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine Vol. 4 Iss. 2 (2015)
Available at: