This is amazing to me.  A filmmaker is getting a tiny camera placed on his prosthetic eye, an eye he lost when he was a teenager.  The camera's controls are not attached to his nerves or brain.  He will be able to turn it off and on from a remote control he uses in his hands.

His purpose is to raise awareness about surveillance cameras in public (public meaning where more than one person is, not meaning owned by the government).  Upon telling individuals who he speaks with that his prosthetic eye is a camera, they react very negatively-however, they have no reaction to the thousands of surveillance cameras that film them-for example, store cameras.

Two things amaze me here.  One is the distance he is willing to go to prove a point.  The second is why do we react so harshly when walking down the street and someone begins videotaping us without our permission?  Yet we blindly walk into any store that may or may not have cameras filming their customers.  (Due to some state laws, I am aware that some stores do post that the store has video monitors.  Those posts are not always placed and if they are, they are in obscure places.)  Is it because of some sort of unwritten, unspoken rule between consumers and store owners stating in order to do business, consumers must be willing to be videotaped?  If not, and we feel that we must give someone our permission before we let them videotape us, then why do we allow store owners to videotape us?