thoughts on the image fulgurator

Seb and I spent some time talking about the impact of this thing. In contrast to the article I linked to yesterday, it simply shouldn't be compared to graffiti. Graffiti is art made on top something that already exists, a finished product. However, this tool doesn't allow the photographer the chance to even have a final image, stamping its presence onto the oblivious photographer's image. It's invasive, and indicative of where technology is moving. Just last night I saw a news article on TV about head-mounted cameras being piloted in Plymouth, England - the journalist noted that surveillance cameras are rampantly used throughout the UK. Protection or invasion? Will the Image Fulgurator move from stamping on another image, to collecting the image into its own camera?