I support the idea of sousveillance. I consider surveillance irrational; and sousveillance (being equally but more deliberately; humorously and ironically irrational, in imitating and mirroring surveillance) a valid protest. In my view, purveyors of hierarchal surveillance keep power by falsely convincing us they protect average peoples' interests. The opposite is true. Power for its own sake is nowhere among Aristotle's 'human virtues'. Sousveillance in fact reveals non-virtue in operation by challenging someone's assumed worthiness of power and influence when such people's typically human, often less-than-virtuous behavior is shown.
In today's popular culture, power often falsely equates to virtue. Therefore many will unthinkingly 'follow the leader' [trust blindly]; become 'team players' [never question authority];...
This is coercion, not leadership; and coercion leading to peer-pressurized 'group-think' is not virtuous, nor is it rational or the result of either virtuous or rational thinking. Sousveillance (which is of course equally irrational, but deliberately, comically, and ironically so) is an excellent counterpoint.
Bearing in mind Aristotle's 'human virtues leading to rationality' ((Nicomachean Ethics), hierarchical surveillance neither teaches nor promote human virtues leading to rationality (Nicomachean Ethics). Powerful political leaders like George W. Bush; Dick Cheney and (until yesterday) Tony Blair; and appointees of theirs like Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzalez typically favor hierarchical surveillance, arguing it promotes the public welfare, especially since no terrorists have attacked America since 911. Aristotle would deem this "cause and effect" argument
