On the Web, you can see just about anything, and see it as quickly or as slowly as you want. Of course, there are the back alley peep shows and strip joints, but also the feet of your co-workers, toilets, and chia pets.

On one level it's all about voyeurism, but simulated voyeurism--being allowed to watch, but without the danger, or thrill, of being caught . Sure the site might be intelligent enough to know you're there, but you're likely to not end up in a courtroom somewhere.

On another level, though, it's about one definition of authorship, about constructing meaning out of the images that make up the lives of our virtual neighbors. They provide the images, you provide the text (or a collection of images, or an ordering of images to provide meaning). It's not exactly turtles all the way down, but images and meaning as far down as we care to descend.

Plagiarism? Hardly as long as you give credit to the original source or don't unfairly try to take credit, through profit, or otherwise, for someone else's work. The debate arises here, though as parties contend for the right to exclusive authorship. The optimistic side of surveillance on the net is that it extends our abilities out to include new perspectives. The flip side, however, revolves around issues of ownership and authorship...how the technology might be used for yet other means.