What About the Targets?
So what do the targets of all this technology think about it? It depends on their situation and the approach that has been used. In cases where the camera can be turned on or off by the target, or with sensors that don't really "show" anything, there is probably less resistance than there might be to cameras that are always on.
I was particularly interested in hearing what people thought who had cameras trained on them all day long. I was told they were mostly very accepting of it. At first that seems puzzling, but then I realized that the programs that were using always-on cameras were targeting people who were at high risk of institutionalization, many with early stage Alzheimers. In those cases, the cameras were the last barrier between them and a move out of their home to a more supervised setting. Not surprisingly, they felt that staying at home with cameras trained on them was a better option than moving somewhere else. I have to agree that they probably had no less privacy at home with the cameras than they would have had in an institution.
Although the systems seem best suited to people whose health has deterioriated as a way to avoid a move to a more supervised setting, they are not suitable for certain severe situations. Every presentation for every type of system emphasized that their system would not be appropriate for someone who wanders, nor for someone who needs 24 hour a day hands-on care.
So what does this all mean? It may mean that a staged approach could make sense. Someone who needs a little but not a lot of supervision from someone else might benefit from a system that they can control themselves, like personal emergency response systems. As the risk of institutionalization increases, control could shift to someone else. That could involve using sensor systems and/or cameras in a system designed to postpone the need to move for someone who is either opposed to or unable to afford to move to a place where they could be supervised in a more traditional way.