The camera was used to observe and record individuals on a regular basis, in the belief that the camera was an objective way of recording truth and showing the images as evidence of that truth, this is now discredited as the camera, and the operator can all so subjectively use the camera.
(David Green, but the construction of new kinds of knowledge about the individual in terms of visible physiological features by which it is possible to measure and compare each individual to another.)
The camera became the tool of choice when recording subjects as anthropology, medicine, and criminology. in using the camera in a subjective way and not really knowing its ability mislead, we ended up with something else, a development into semiotics and a new form of knowledge. When we look back at the images in the paper, I get a sense of sorrow that the individuals were put through, what now seems like a degrading process unless of course they were told the full extent and importance of the images at the time, but I doubt this very much.
The gaze of the camera was ever-present its ability to record and the very fact that the camera was and still is being used to record and observe people. Is In its self an emblem of power.
If a photograph is to be used as evidence it must have been taken by a set standard and by a trained individual using that set standard that is accepted by the governing body.