Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

Project context and intent

• Many commenters recognize this as an art installation rather than a civic-tech tool, noting the creator’s other surveillance-themed works.
• Some question the reposting of an older, seemingly inactive project and see it as personal branding or marketing; others argue that aligns with art practice and isn’t inherently bad.
• A few interpret the work as more about provoking thought on surveillance and metrics than about “catching lazy politicians”.

Is phone-tagging meaningful or misleading?

• Critics call it “silly” or useless without knowing what’s on the screen: fact-checking, coordinating, note-taking, or slacking all look the same.
• Supporters counter that visible distraction is still a fair signal about attentiveness, and that similar behavior in normal meetings would be unacceptable.
• Others argue occasional “slacking” is human and acceptable as long as overall performance is good.

Surveillance, power, and ‘symmetry’

• A strong thread says: if ordinary people are subjected to invasive monitoring and algorithmic scoring, politicians should experience the same “weight of reality” they help create.
• Some explicitly frame it as a way to make decision‑makers feel how dehumanizing automated monitoring can be, hoping it might generate empathy and better regulation.
• Opponents see it as childish, creepy “bossware for politicians” that adds to hostility and may deter capable people from entering politics.

Legality and privacy debates (EU/GDPR)

• Several comments suggest it may conflict with EU rules on biometric data and AI processing without consent.
• Others point to GDPR derogations for journalism and artistic expression, though there’s disagreement on whether they cover facial detection here.

Expectations of politicians and real parliamentary work

• Some say elected officials, paid by the public, should visibly pay attention in the chamber.
• Others note that much substantive work happens in committees and backchannels; plenary speeches are often theater with pre-determined votes, so phone use there is less meaningful.
• Accessibility and neurodiversity are raised: for some, using a phone or parallel activity can actually improve focus and comprehension.

Broader reflections and offshoots

• The project is likened to gamified metrics and “jerk middle manager” dashboards.
• Suggestions include applying similar tech to other parliaments or to detect drivers using phones, with immediate recognition that this would raise even stronger privacy concerns.