Phase I - Construction sketches/mockups/ideas

Initial concept:

Revised concept:

No pushbutton, just headphone output and slots for SD card & USB flash memory. The memory slots are not in the mockup as the measurements are not in the datasheets nor do I have a board on hand to measure. Depending on the board, I may have to get a larger case. The 9v battery is mounted to the lid of the enclosure with clips and it sits above the MP3 player board. If there is not enough clearance for components, a new box will be chosen.

Side view of revised box:

Possible variation:

I am feeling a bit off about having to be tied to headphones for the project - it's a way to further shelter/buffer the user from their environment. An alternative would be just a small box with an LCD display and a vibrating motor so that you essentially receive instructions like a text message or with a pager. The 16x2 character LCDs also offer a nice limitation for text instructions. In this way the user could put the device in their pocket while walking and only have to pay attention to it when it vibrates, indicating that there is a new instruction awaiting.

PseudoCam, wearable behavior modification system

It is fairly uncontroversial to assert that many people will modify their behavior when they are aware of being observed or recorded. As a mechanism of modifying behavior, the implication of observation‐and the implicit threat of punishment or retribution based on the evidence thus obtained‐is both time-honored and effective. The principle, exmplified in social phenomena such as Santa Claus, is one of the reasons that investigative reporters and law enforcement professionals frequently make use of hidden cameras specifically to prevent people around them from altering their behavior so the "true" speech and actions of the subject can be recorded.

But what if inducing others to modify their behavior is actually the primary goal of using a recording device instead of a mere side-effect of the act of openly capturing images and/or audio? The introduction of an obvious means of recording a social interaction alters the event in potentially desirable ways; rude or uncooperative customer service agents, unruly teenagers, and insensitive comments or jokes can be discouraged by the tactical deployment of a camera.

The continuing miniaturization and commodification of optic sensors and audio recording devices already give individuals the capability to capture their interactions with others through a wide variety of ubiquitous consumer devices such as cell phones and tablets in addition to point-and-shoot cameras or handheld video recorders. However, many of these products demand constant manual engagement to hold and operate, which can negatively impact the wearer's mobility. Also, because the devices require power and internal capacity to actively record images, video, or audio, the user is required to devote mental resources to managing the batteries and storage media of the devices. The technical aspects of operating a modern recording device, while suited to the purposes of recording, actually impede a user that is primarily interested in modifying the tone of their social interactions.

Additionally, in some jurisdictions, the state of law has not fully digested recent technological advancement as it relates to photo- and videography within the public sphere. As a result, the use of recording devices in certain public and semi-public contexts, such as at shopping malls, performance venues, or around police officers, can result in a range of legal consequences ranging from denial of entry to actual prosecution for wiretapping or eavesdropping, as illustrated by the state of Illinois' ongoing case against Michael Allison. Although the legal right to record people in public is theoretically held to be valid by the courts (see Glik v. Cunniffe), the widespread confusion apparent in recent court actions encourages a degree of risk avoidance when implementing a camera-based behavioral modification system, if for no other reason then to reduce or obviate the need for an expensive legal defense.

The purpose of the PseudoCam is to provide a low-cost, DIY, camera-like behavioral modification solution for situations where the actual recording of images or audio is superfluous to requirements. By being a small, light object, the PseudoCam can be affixed to apparel or accessories through the use of Velcro or simple clips. The prominent lens assembly and visible recording indicator light makes the PseudoCam readily identifiable as a active camera to a subject being engaged by the wearer‐such as a store cashier or fellow CTA traveller‐but the overall package is small enough to be worn comfortably and discreet enough that the wearer does not stand out in a crowd. Because the recording indicator light is the only active component in the PseudoCam, the power requirements are trivially low and do not require particular concentration from the user. In addition, in order to avoid the legal hazards of recording in public while still achieving the effect of inducing people to behave as if you were recording them, the PseudoCam does not contain any mechanism for recording images or audio of any kind. And, because it is easily constructed with inexpensive materials, the replacement cost for a lost or destroyed PseudoCam is quite low. Thus, the PseudoCam is a valid solution for anyone interested in observing the effects of camera-based behavioral modification without the potentially significant expense involved in using an actual camera.

Sketch #1 Possible Construction Guide

Sketch #2 Overview

Project Sketches (added 2011-09-29)

Research Project - Phase 1: Chaz

Possible working titles:

Comfort Situation

or

Autonomy Bag

There is no blanket federal policy of the public consumption of alcohol in the United States, instead alcohol laws are determined by regional authority. Although a state legislature has the ability to create state-wide rules for alcohol consumption, few make such state-wide policies and often alcohol policy is derived from very specific micro-polities. Policy is often determined at the county level, but it is not uncommon for the ultimate rules to be determined by the city, town or even village level. It is a rare category of American legislation which is allowed a wide spectrum: one village may be under complete prohibition, while the next town over has several liquor stores and public houses. Often these neighboring alcohol situations create cross-pollination creating a consumptive eco-system even though contrasting values are expressed by the public policy placed on the differing community. In this way public alcohol policy offers one perspective on the cultural conditions and human relationships in very specific localities. Public alcohol consumption laws can be seen as reflections and expressions of cultural ideas and boundaries, as well as actively enforce and influence behavior in social space. The lack or presence of alcohol in public space, private space, or "third-spaces" has a real impact the subject's and collective's relationship to, and behavior within, space.

In personal experience I have been incredibly struck by the stark difference in human performance between the public spaces of Chicago and New Orleans. Statistically Chicago is rated a as a far more alcohol-consuming town than New Orleans (per-capita). In fact it consistently ranked in top-placements of American alcohol consumption by various sources. Yet, New Orleans is famous for its carnival oriented culture even though statistically less alcohol is being consumed. More important than the statistical comparison is the comparison of how people relate to space and each other when public alcohol consumption policy is on either extreme of a spectrum: Chicago allowing no open containers in public (not counting exceptional public spaces contained by specific delimitations in space and time), while New Orleans allows the free carriage of any drink up and down any street. (In both cases I am comparing the policy of possessing open containers as a pedestrian, in both locations it is of course illegal to carry alcohol in the passenger compartments of automobiles.) In New Orleans the presence of this manner of alcohol consumption leads to many radical pairings of humans interrelating that might not occur in a space that does not afford such consumption, create visits to and behaviors in locations that one might never otherwise, and of course may cause the problematic decisions, behaviors and pairings which can get a subject into trouble. Chicago on the other hand, and its policy of confinement certainly do not curtail the consumption of alcohol but do engender, it could be argued, alcohol influenced behaviors and relationships with also take on a confined quality. This results in the less carnival-esque character of alcohol consumption in Chicago, but does can create an intensity of relationships and community, in in constrast personal isolation, especially in winter months.

In order to delocate the character of these contrasting spaces, and perhaps make a temporary hybrid space of these examples (and possibly others) my project endeavors to exploit a well-known, yet infrequently exercised exception in the blanket prohibition of open containers in Chicago: the "Brown Bag" law. In what has always struck me as a somewhat arbitrary gesture of legal appeasement, a Chicago citizen can legally carry an open container if it is properly wrapped in a brown bag. But with this legal work-around comes cultural biases and class distinctions which for the most part discourage the practice, or at least keep the brown bag practice a far cry away from the carnival streets of New Orleans drinking culture.

This project consideres altering the the conditions of social space, and the human behavoir therien, by embracing the concept of the brown bag rule, while altering it spatially and structurally. If the visual attention of the brown bag in public engenders neither the radical comradery of New Orleans or the intensified drinking relationships of Chicago, perhaps an inversion of what is contained can provide an atomized unit of both. By containing not the beverage, but a small social situation itself within a brown bag, hybrid, radical, and ephemeral social spaces could be engendered through use of very modest materials.

Partially inspired by the methods of the Situationist derive, I propose a portable kit which could quickly deploy or collapse a space for two participants to enjoy an alcoholic beverage, contained within a brown paper structure, within any public space where it would not otherwise be possible to do so. The kit would allow the pair to wander freely through public space, stop to deploy the structure and drink, pack up and continue wandering again. The aim is to alter the experience of many social spaces which would not be normally experienced with the consumption of alcohol, as well as create temporary autonomous drinking zones to ensure the inclusion of the inter-personal imporance of consuming alcohol.

To keep the rigor, thoughtfulness, and legality of this exercise on the level, use of the kit would be strongly prohibited for those under the age of 21 (or of legal drinking age in any locality where the kit is used.) Furthermore a strong guideline of moderation would be emphasized in the design of the kit; the brown paper rule works around the open container rule of Chicago, but public drunkenness laws in Chicago and other localities are another thing altogether.

Here are some initial sketches of what this kit/structure might look like. The first is a box design with legs that telescope and rotate inwards toward the top of the frame. Brown paper is extendable from all sides via rollers attached to all four sides of the frame top. A handle on one side of the frame is used to carry the structure when it is collapsed like an light ironing board or guitar case.

The second design is more tent-like. The kit consists of two parts 1) a lattice which can be collapsed into a walking stick, and a brown paper covering which can be folded into a pouch. The covering is cut to the form of a tent so all you have to do is place it of the lattice and fasten its corners down somehow (method for this is not yet decided.)

The third and perhaps most convenient design doesn't use a frame at all. Instead it is simply a gigantic brown paper bag which is placed upside-down on top of the two drinking participants. The bodies of the participants themselves act as a frame to prop the bag up, with enough space between the two to enjoy beverage and conversation. Optionally, participation could wear should mounts which could hold the bag above their heads, in case supporting the bag with the head is not comfortable.

View 1: Bag Exterior

view 2: bag interior

view 3: bag interior with optional shoulder mounts