The assumption that the proliferation of cameras will mean the increase either in personal autonomy or hegemonic power is based on a simplistic view of how technology affects our lives. In either case, we’re essentially saying the same thing: that optics technologies are simply a passive tool to be used by one subject or another; what this dialectic fails to account for is the ways in which optics technologies have acquired and will continue to acquire a set of autonomous social, political, and aesthetic principles that they insinuate into those of humans. This seems to be the less understood and less appreciated potentiality of a future saturated by cameras, that is, the ways in which neither the human subjects nor the human objects of such a world exert meaningful control over the ways in which these technologies affect our lives. In his essay, “The Vision Machine” Paul Virilio posits that we are entering an era of sightless vision wherein the production, analysis, and communication of photographic images occurs entirely within an information technology system that does not make itself visible to humans. Frederich Kittler has also pointed out that digital computers are not built to deal with images, but rather their mathematical representations. Taken together, both these critics understand that a world saturated by digital optics technologies perforce must be one ruled by principles other than those which suit and serve human parameters.