Upload
run2obtain
View
66
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Critical Analysis of State and Corporate Networked Surveillance,
Including Dataveillance.
Introduction
The intensification of surveillance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has
further justified the argument that we live in a Surveillance Society, one where
strict surveillance is considered as a means of providing security (Lyon,2003).
Surveillance has been further simplified owing to the growing need to use our
Personal Identifiable Information (PII) to access and consume goods and
services which leave digital footprints that are retained, compiled and
manipulated (Green, 1999) for surveillance purposes. State and corporate
organisations are now involved in diverse forms of surveillance. Whilst this
trend has brought several successes in fighting crime and commerce, serious
concerns are expressed regarding its true aims, benefits and limits. Would
surveillance make the world safer or would it be used as a tool for exercising
control and power? This essay critically analyses state and corporate
surveillance and dataveillance.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows; a comprehensive review of the
existing literature on surveillance is first conducted. Afterwards, the issues of
state and corporate surveillance and dataveillance are investigated as
separate entities. Finally, the essay discusses how governments and private
companies cooperate in the perspective of dataveillance.
From Surveillance to Dataveillance – An Overview
Surveillance has transcended from the previous notion of looking after people
to a powerful machinery for exercising control and power over them.1
Traditional surveillance was costly and required excessive human and
material efforts, and these factors served as a check against over-ambitious
intelligence gathering projects. Dataveillance on the other hand takes
1 http://tactical4934.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/extended-thoughts-on-implications-of.html
2
advantage of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) (Clarke,
2003a) and delivers cheaper, largely automated and effective surveillance
technologies (Lyon, 2008). Consequently, dataveillance could become
intrusive and difficult to regulate. Dataveillance thrives on the digital footprints
we leave behind as we perform our daily activities like tele-working, banking,
shopping, communicating; a notion Lyon (2006, pp, 25) referred to as the
“electronic panopticon”. It is therefore not surprising that several surveillance
technologies are derived from the emerging trends in the internet and ICTs.
However, the pervasive use of these sophisticated surveillance technologies
could lead to authoritarianism and intrusions on privacy (Ericson and
Haggerty, 2006). Although the states claims dataveillance is crucial for
successful anti-terrorist efforts, Ogura (2006) believes a key motivation for
dataveillance is to predict unknown people’s future behaviour. Realising this
however requires extensive data mining which may not be legal.
Consequently, a huge part of state surveillance efforts which hitherto
concentrated on foreign intelligence gathering is now done within the
country (Mobbs, 2003). Also, several partnerships between the state security
agencies and private companies are emerging. .
State Surveillance and Dataveillance
Government intelligence agencies are adopting more sophisticated
technologies like web surveillance in order to fight crime effectively. These
include monitoring websites visited, and keeping track of information
exchanged via emails, Skype, instant messaging and social networking sites. 2
The UK government recently announced plans to adopt web surveillance,
claiming they would not intrude on privacy by not reading the contents of
emails. 3 However, the claim that private emails would not be read is quite
debatable. This is specifically because there are hardly any measures that
would indicate that the emails are not being read anyway. Moreover,
2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17595209
3
governments became suspicious of everyone since after 9/11 (Lyon, 2003) so
it is worrisome why they would not go ahead and read the contents of the
mails and other internet communications they access. China and Iran have
been condemned by the West because of similar policies, thus it is also
difficult for the Western Nations to justify their dataveillance. 4 It is quite
undemocratic for the government to pry into all online activities for the sake
of fighting terrorism. Democracy thrives on freedom of speech and right to
privacy; however, such web surveillance would definitely prevent people
from their fundamental human rights because most people will be wary of the
government’s monitoring. Awareness of being watched has psychological
impacts; it reduces productivity, causes depression, anxiety and tension
(Smith et al, 1992). For example, someone who innocently sends a mail to a
colleague on a discussion about current terrorist methods for educational
purposes may be flagged and monitored unnecessarily, not everyone wants
such attention. If government never legalised reading mails sent by post then
it becomes suspicious for them to acquire the authority to monitor emails.
According to Donahue, Whittemore and Heerman (2007) and Clarke (2003b),
dataveillance could make security agencies concentrate their efforts and
resources on minor offences rather than serious ones, which would ultimately
lead to inefficiency in fighting crime. Also, data mining could be complicated
and costly in terms of infrastructure, human effort and time (Seifert, 2004)
despite the usage of sophisticated technology especially if errors are to be
minimised. Therefore, Schneier (2010) emphasises on the need to balance
between normal human intelligence (which could be more accurate and
reliable) and heavy reliance on dataveillance. 5 This was demonstrated by
the inability to identify the perpetrators behind the murder of senior Hamas
commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in January 2010 at Dubai despite the
use of sophisticated surveillance technology.
4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474011.stm
5 http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/the_mahmoud_al-.html
4
Most cyber criminals, hacktivists (for example Anonymous), and terrorists
employ Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) including proxies,(Shelley,
2003) The Onion Router (TOR), anonymizers and encryption to evade
detection. 6 It is difficult to determine how effective dataveillance would be
at identifying them. The state could rather concentrate efforts at overcoming
these challenges than spying on all internet users. With governments
monitoring online activities, it is expected that the use of PETs would not only
increase but that more sophisticated, clandestine methods would emerge
(Clarke, 2003a). Innocent people would want to hide their online activities
while criminals would want to be more subtle. 7 Similarly, how far would the
government go if faced with online hacktivists and opposition due to
dataveillance? 8 Would it employ cyber espionage measures like Trojans and
spyware (as in Syria and other countries)9 because of their inability to access
anonymised and encrypted communications? Maybe even legalise such
approaches? It may not be too pessimistic to anticipate such measures
because surveillance strategies designed for specific reasons often change
unexpectedly from their initial purpose (Lyon, 2006) (Seifert, 2004).
Identity theft costs the UK £1.7 billion annually,10 while over 3.6 million
households in the US have been victims.11 Identity theft could impair the
accuracy of state dataveillance and lead to injustice (Dummer, 2006).
Cybercriminals could employ Identity theft to avoid detection and/or
blackmail their opponents especially with foreknowledge of government’s
dataveillance. For example, monitoring emails may not identify the true
originators (Moss, 2003). However it may not be very easy for a falsely
accused victim of identity theft to exonerate himself. (Dummer, 2006, pp 274-
6 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/02/how-to-hide-emails-government-snooping
7 http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/03/28/our-surveillance-state/
8 There are a couple of open source projects designed to assist internet freedom for people in internet
controlled countries like the psiphon project. http://psiphon.ca/?page_id=178 9 http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-17/tech/tech_web_computer-virus-syria_1_opposition-activists-computer-
viruses-syrian-town?_s=PM:TECH 10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4672622.stm 11
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2006/BJS06039.htm
5
275). Furthermore, data abstraction systems are also susceptible to attacks
and errors (Mobbs, 2003) (Seifert, 2004) .This includes networked CCTVs; 12 they
are susceptible to cyber attacks through which video feeds may be altered,
stolen or modified in real-time (Li and Yi, 2010). Thus, over dependence on
dataveillance without alternative verification methods could result to
misinterpretation of peoples’ profiles (false positives) and ultimately wrong
decision making. Unfortunately, individuals rarely know what their profiles are,
hence they lack the opportunity to correct it until when a case arises (Cate,
2010).
The uncertainty of how the state would use data in the future is worrying,
owing to several reasons a major one being functional/data creep; the
likelihood of using technologies/data in ways they were not initially intended
to be used (Seifert, 2004). An example is the evolvement in the usage of data
derived from the London Oyster cards; originally used in improving
transportation. The Metropolitan Police has requested for information from this
database on several occasions (Lyon, 2008). Suffice to say in the future,
governments may use data acquired from dataveillance in ways that we
may not imagine today. Furthermore, the deployment of Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID), microchips and nano-technology has positive
implications including effective monitoring of paedophiles and child
offenders rather than keeping them in the prisons (Cohen, 2010, pp 138 – 141).
However, it can only be imagined how such technology would be employed
in the future. 13 State dataveillance can also be useful for ensuring several
social welfare programs. For example the data profiling program of the
Australian Department of Social Security was used to identify families with
children who were eligible for additional assistance through the Family
Allowance Supplement. (Lyon and Zureik, 1996). Thus, state dataveillance is 12
there are about 4.2 million CCTV cameras used in the UK; one for every 14 people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6479395.stm 13
There are already suggestions to use RFIDs to identify wounded/dead soldiers instead of dogtags, to prevent cases of missing children through chip implants and even as means of identifying citizen rather contemporary methods like national ID cards. (http://beginningandend.com/u-s-military-developing-rfid-microchip-implants-for-soldiers/)( http://engine.lib.uwaterloo.ca/ojs-2.2/index.php/pptvt/article/viewFile/548/195)
6
not bad per se, yet, there is the need to clearly outline its limits so as to
prevent unimaginable circumstances in the future.
Corporate Surveillance and Dataveillance
Unlike the government, corporate surveillance/dataveillance is majorly borne
out of the desire to maximise profits. Hence, many big corporations are
currently involved in surveillance and dataveillance, aimed at gathering as
much information as possible on their customers. A research by Ponemon
(2010), claims that the average user appreciates (several are unaware while
some are indifferent) use of his information, not minding the implications as
long as his online experience is improved. For example if a consumer
purchased a book from eBay, a list of similar books and related items would
be automatically generated. This saves time for people interested in making
more related purchases. Similar suggestions could be flashed as adverts even
after navigating to other sites. Essentially, this is facilitated by the sharing of
marketing interests/ profiles (via cookies) between various sites/companies.
This may also be a good means of aiding discovery of similar goods and
services offered by other vendors. Using customers’ data to improve services
could be understandable nevertheless, most data is either exchanged or
traded with other companies, like credit/financial companies (Lyon, 2010), for
additional information that could be useful in assessing the customers’ credit
worthiness. Most of this is done without users’ knowledge. 14Customers’ data is
traded to data profiling warehouses (and other companies) which categorise
it into groupings in terms of race, age, gender, wealth and so on(Zimmer,
2007) . However, Fienberg (2006) claims that such data could be inaccurate,
as well as the profiles created from them. This is because people could be
actually different from whom they appear to be online; identities cannot be
comprehensively or perfectly formed through dataveillance.15 However,
corporations use these groupings to discriminate between their customers; this
14
This is against the EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). 15
http://tactical4934.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/extended-thoughts-on-implications-of.html
7
trend is being exacerbated and institutionalized (Surveillance Studies Network,
2006). Furthermore, such data is used for targeted advertising, which could be
considered a tool for controlling web users as it exploits the awareness of
user’s online activities through powerful predictive algorithms to seduce them
into making purchases even when they do not have such plans. 16 This is the
business model upon which companies like Google (Craig and Ludolff, 2011)
make so much profit.17
Data mechanising is a booming trade now, many businesses are involved in
this. Data is accumulated from various sources and sold for as little as $65 per
thousand names.18 Casino houses are known to purchase such information for
use in face recognition software to target barred or unworthy customers.19
Health records purchased by pharmaceutical companies and retailers are
also used to target those with such ailments using spam mails or on their
browsers with adverts.20 Numerous applications for mobile devices (ipads,
smart phones) and social networks add additional features. However they
demand for various levels of access to our devices including access to call
records, messages and inboxes.21 We know little of how our devices are
accessed afterwards or how the extracted data is used. Data merchandising
thus flourishes to the detriment of our privacy (Donahue, Whittemore and
Heerman, 2006, pp2). Similarly, cookies are installed on browsers without the
knowledge of users. This is a huge privacy intrusion (Ashworth and Free, 2006,
pp 108) because cookies are like bugging devices; they can record all online
activities including usernames, browsing preferences, and habits.22 Hence
they facilitate features like targeted advertising. Corporate sharing of
16
http://www.neolane.com/usa/resources/industry-news/articles/study-shows-internet-advertising-influences-electronics-purchases 17
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11545463 18
http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/ 19
http://www.onlinecasinoking.com/casino-facial-recognition.html 20
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13190004 21
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225219/18_firms_sued_for_using_privacy_invading_mobile_apps 22
Storing cookies on the user’s machine without his/her consent contravenes the EU e-Privacy Directive(Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC )
8
customer information without their consent is a serious breach of privacy
(Conti, 2009).
Data held by corporate companies are vulnerable to data loss either by
misplacement/theft, or by cyber attacks. Data lost in the Time Warner
incidents23,US DoD health contractor TriWest 24 and the multiple attacks
against Google25,26 encroach on privacy and could be used to commit
several crimes(Congi,2009). This raises an important question regarding the
safety of data in the hands of these private and commercial corporations.
The emergence of cloud computing could further the pervasiveness of
corporate dataveillance. Data which was ordinarily held within organisational
confines now resides in the cloud hence the Cloud Security Alliance (2011)
asserts that data security is a concern. One possibility is the ability of Cloud
Service Providers (CSPs) to access client data, for example health records
held in Google could be accessed and used for targeted advertising without
client awareness. For example, in the Google Cloud, a single account may
be used to access multiple Google cloud services (for example Youtube,
Google maps, Google+, Google docs). Corporate surveillance and
dataveillance is pervasive and needs to be regulated possibly through
government legislations. (Ashworth and Free, 2006). A direct consequence of
dataveillance is the emergence of private data warehouses that accumulate
large public databases including health records, buying habits, credit and
financial information from different sources. Andrejevic (2007) asserts that
such companies also offer background checking services at different rates
and they are increasingly patronised by employers’ and fiancés/fiancées.
There is also a proliferation of all sorts of surveillance software that are
commercially available for example email tracking devices and phone
calls/messages recorders. However, such technologies are re-tooled and
used as anti-dotes; most spyware have corresponding spyware detectors.
23
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/02/news/fortune500/security_timewarner/?cnn=yes 24
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-data-breach-texas-idUSTRE78S5JG20110929 25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11920651 26
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13623378
9
While the spyware become more evasive, the spyware detectors also get
better (or try to) at detecting them. Consequently, Andrejevic (2007) argues
that there is a “self-proliferating spiral of monitoring technologies and cloaking
ones”. More worrying is the fact that the availability of these services and
software fosters suspicion in the society. (Surveillance Studies Network, 2006)
The Convergence of State and Corporate Dataveillance
The convergence of state and corporate surveillance structures for the
purpose of dataveillance holds the greatest threat on privacy and other
concerns. (Chander, 2011) This notion is supported by Haggerty and Ericson
(2000) who referred to it as the “surveillant assemblage”; the multiplicity and
heterogeneity of several systems that are harnessed for the purpose of
surveillance consequently producing a more comprehensive, effective and
broader surveillance machinery. State intelligence is limited in the collection
of certain kinds of data including financial and insurance records, airline data
and health records (Ericsson and Haggerty, 1999). Accordingly, governments
either purchase such data from private firms, or contracts the business of data
warehousing and data mining to private companies. The government
benefits not only in data accumulation, but also in circumventing the need to
secure court warrants to access these data (Cohen, 2010, pp 47 – 48) (Wood,
2009) since these private firms are not subject to the same legal constraints as
the government.27 An example of this kind of relationship is the one between
the US Intelligence agencies and Google. 28 Recent legal efforts by a privacy
watchdog Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to halt this relationship
were unsuccessful. 29 Similarly, private data profiling firms like Acxiom have
had dealings with the US Government intelligence agencies (Whitaker, 1999,
pp 130 -132). However, such data could have been acquired through illegal
27 A major private company involved during the Bush Administration was ChoicePoint ,Inc. It was the defacto
datawarehousing and datamining company for the US government. In 2009, ChoicePoint was fined US$275,000 by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for a data breach in 2008 that exposed personal information of 13,750 people. http://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/ 28
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CIA_creates_miniGoogle_0331.html 29
http://www.prisonplanet.com/department-of-justice-wants-court-to-keep-googlensa-partnership-secret.html
10
means, sometimes even from other government departmental databases.
This trend not only depreciates privacy but also encourages corruption
because unscrupulous government officials might sell this data to the private
firms. 30 It also weakens democracy, erodes privacy and inhibits certain kinds
of free speech including political dissent (Cockfield, 2003). Another
controversial relationship is the suspected association between Facebook
and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA. Several linkages
have been made between certain powerful US individuals and Facebook.
(Cohen, 2010, pp 53 – 55).
Conclusion
Surveillance has intensified since the 9/11 attacks (Lyon, 2003) and this has
caused the adoption of several dataveillance methods. Apart from being
more efficient, dataveillance is cheaper than traditional surveillance methods
(Clarke, 2003a). Thus, it is intrusive and harder to regulate (Lyon, 2008). This
could be a reason for its excessive use by state intelligence agencies even
though they claim that it is crucial for successful crime fighting and counter
terrorist efforts. Ericson and Haggerty (2006), however, argue that the
continual use of pervasive dataveillance could impinge on privacy and
impose authoritarian rule. This notion is supported by Ogura (2006). He claims
that the massive databases crucial for dataveillance cannot be completely
collected by legal means so the state would use illegal methods in their crave
for more data. The recent intention by the UK government to monitor all
online communication raises suspicions despite their claim to respect privacy.
31 Nation states like China and Iran have been widely condemned for web
surveillance, hence it is quite troubling that western states have started
adopting similar measures claiming it is for counter terrorist efforts. 32
Dataveillance could distract security agencies from serious crimes while they
focus on crimes that are easily detectable online (Donahue, Whittemore and
30
Whitaker (1999) described in her book the data transactions between Acxiom and the US Postal
Service, how they exchanged information illegally. 31
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17595209 32
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474011.stm
11
Heerman, 2007)(Clarke,2003b), consequently impairing social justice. Hence,
the state could rather concentrate efforts at overcoming the use of PETs by
cybercriminals, hacktivists and cyber terrorists to evade detection 33 instead of
monitoring all internet users. Similarly, the problem of identity theft could
potentially impair state dataveillance because it introduces serious
inaccuracies in data mining (Dummer, 2006). It poses a great risk as it could
be used as a weapon against political opposition, for blackmail and other
crimes. Dummer (2006) asserts that there are hardly laid down procedures for
falsely accused victims of identity theft to exonerate themselves from
suspected cybercrimes.
Corporate dataveillance is becoming as intrusive as state dataveillance,
though it is majorly borne out of the desire to maximise profit, it holds grave
implications. The profiles created from the accumulated data is not
necessarily accurate (Fienberg , 2006) owing to the inconclusiveness of online
identities vis-a-vis physical identities 34 however these profiles are used to
discriminate between individuals ; preferential treatment is given to perceived
wealthy people. Furthermore, Craig and Ludolff, (2011) flaw the use of highly
aggressive and pervasive targeted advertising methods by companies like
Google to virtually control people to purchase in ways not planned while
eroding their privacies. But not only big corporations are involved in
dataveillance, owing to the emergence of data merchandising as a lucrative
business, data profiling companies now adopt several means of harvesting
private information which they trade to other companies or the
government(Whitaker, 1999, pp 130 -132). It is the affiliation between such
private companies and the government that raises the greatest concerns; it
aids the government in circumventing the need to secure certain data
without requesting for warrants (Cohen, 2010, pp 47 – 48) (Wood, 2009). This
amounts to severe infringement on the right to privacy. Efforts by EPIC and
other similar Human Rights bodies to question these suspicious relationships
33
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/02/how-to-hide-emails-government-snooping 34
http://tactical4934.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/extended-thoughts-on-implications-of.html
12
(for example between Google and the NSA, Facebook and CIA) have been
unsuccessful.35 The impact of these associations on dataveillance in the future
is unimaginable.
References
Andrejevic (2007) iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era.
Available at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/201320-1 [Accessed on 21
May 2012].
Ashworth and Free (2006) Marketing Dataveillance and Digital Privacy: Using
Theories of Justice to Understand Consumers’ Online Privacy Concerns.
Available online at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/27127007h71q7166/fulltext.pdf
[Accessed 12 May 2012]
Balkin, J (2008) The Constitution in the National Surveillance State. The
Minnesota Law Review.
Ball and Webster (2003) The Intensification of Surveillance: Crime, Terrorism
and Warfare in the information age.
Cate,(2010) Government Access to Private Sector Data. Security & Privacy,
IEEE , vol.8, no.6, pp.68-71, Nov.-Dec. 2010Available online at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5655245&tag=1
[Accessed 12 May 2012]
Chander, A (2011) Googling Freedom. The California Law Review.pg 5 .
Available online at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=053516ff-de75-
4f79-a129-12672073a91a%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=108 [accessed on 21
May 2012]
35
http://www.prisonplanet.com/department-of-justice-wants-court-to-keep-googlensa-partnership-secret.html
13
Clarke,R. (2003a) Dataveillance- 15 Years on. Available online at :
http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/DVNZ03.html [accessed on 14 May 2012]
Clarke,R. (2003b) Information Technology and Dataveillance. Available online
at :
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46248/26/02Paper01.pdf
[accessed on 25 May 2012]
Cloud Security Alliance (2011) Security Guidance for Critical Areas of Focus In
Cloud Computing V 3.0. Available online at :
https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/guidance/csaguide.v3.0.pdf [accessed on
25 May 2012]
Cockfield,L.J(2003)Who watches the watchers .A Law and Technology
perspective on the government and private sector surveillance. Queens Law
Journal 29. Pp 364 - Available online at :
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/qu
een29&id=374&cotp=true&cotp_toggle=0 [accessed on 25 May 2012]
Cohen, E.D (2010) Mass Surveillance and State Control. The Total Information
Awareness Project. Palgrave Macmillan. New York
Conti,G . (2009) Googling Security: How much does google know about you.
Pearson Education. Boston
Craig, T and Ludolff,M.E (2011) Privacy and Big Data. O Reilly Media
.Sebastopol.
Dummer,S.W(2006) False Positives and Secure Flight using Dataveillance when
viewed through the ever-increasing likelihood of identity theft. Journal
Technology, Law and Policy.Issue 2. Pp 259 – 284. Available online at :
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtlp11&div=17&g_sent=
1&collection=journals [accessed on 27 May 2012]
14
Donahue, Whittemore and Heerman(2007) The Ethical issues of data
Surveillance. Available online at :
www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH20.pdf [accessed on 14 May 2012]
Ericson,R.V and Haggerty,K,D (2006) The Politics of Surveillance and Visibility.
University of Toronto Press. Buffalo, Toronto.
Fienberg, E.S (2006) Privacy and Confidentiality in an E-Commerce World:
Data Mining, data warehousing, matching and disclosure limitation. Statistical
Science. Volume 21, Number 2. Available online at
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handl
e=euclid.ss/1154979817 : [accessed on 18 May 2012]
Fishman, C.S. (2003) Technology and the internet: The Impending Destruction
of Privacy by Betrayers, ruders, Snoops, Spammers, Corporations and the
Media. The Future of the Internet Surveillance Law: A Symposium to Discuss
Internet Surveillance, Privacy and the USA PATROIT Act : Surveillance , Records
and Computers. Pg 1532-1533. Available online at
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=1503&handle=hein.journals%2Fg
wlr72&collection=journals [accessed on 20 May 2012]
Green, S (1999): A Plague On The Panopticon: Surveillance and Power in the
global information economy, Information, Communication & Society, 2:1, 26-
44. Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136911899359745 :
[accessed on 14 May 2012]
Haggerty, K.D and Ericson, R.V(2000) The Surveillant Assamblage’, British
Journal of Sociology,51(4),605 -22.
Li, I and Yi, W.S (2010) Security requirements of CCTV. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology 70 2010. Available online at:
http://waset.org/journals/waset/v70/v70-36.pdf [accessed on 14 May 2012]
15
Lyon,D and Zureik,E (1996) Computers, Surveillance and Privacy.University of
Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.
Lyon, D (2003) Surveillance After September 11.Polity Press, Cambridge .
Lyon, D. (2006) Theorizing Surveillance, the Panopticon and Beyond. William
Publishing.Devon.
Lyon,D (2008) Surveillance Society. Available online at :
http://www.festivaldeldiritto.it/2008/pdf/interventi/david_lyon.pdf [accessed
on 14 May 2012]
Michael , K and Michael,M, G (2007) A Note on Uberveillance. The Second
Workshop on the Social implications of National Security. Available online at
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=kmicha
el [accessed on 14 May 2012]
Mobbs, P (2003) Privacy and Surveillance. How and when organisations and
states can monitor your actions.reenNet Civil Society Rights Project. Available
online at : http://www.internetrights.org.uk/briefings/irtb05-rev1-draft.pdf
[accessed on 18 May 2012]
Mun-Cho Kim(2004) Surveillance Technology , privacy and social control: with
reference to the case of the electronic national identification card in south
korea. Available online at
http://iss.sagepub.com/content/19/2/193.full.pdf+html [accessed on 14 May
2012]
Ponemon Institute (2010) Economic Impact of Privacy on Online Behavioural
Advertising. Available online at:
http://www.evidon.com/documents/OBA_paper.pdf [accessed on 14 May
2012]
(Shelley,L.I. 2003) Organised Crime, Terrorism and Cybercrime. In Bryden, A
and Fluri, P (eds) (2003) Security Sector Reform: Institutions, Society and Good
16
Governance. Available online at: http://www.crime-
research.org/library/Terrorism_Cybercrime.pdf [accessed on 3 May 2012]
Smith, M. J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K. J., Lim, Soo-Yee, LeGrande, D.,
"Employee Stress and Health Complaints in Jobs With and Without Electronic
Performance Monitoring,” Applied Ergonomics, 1992 (1), pp. 17-28
Seifert, W.J (2004) Data Mining and the search for security: Challenges for
Connecting the dots and the Databases. Government Information Quarterly
21 (2004) 461–480. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
Washington, DC 20540-7450, USA. Available online at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X04000590
[accessed on 14 May 2012]
Surveillance Studies Network (2006) A Report on the Surveillance Society for
the Information Commissioner. Available online at
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical
_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf [accessed on 14 May
2012]
Whitaker,R (1999) The End of Privacy; How Total Surveillance is Becoming a
Reality. The New Press. New York.
Wood,D.M (2009)Spies in the Information Economy: Academic Publishers and
the trade in Public Information. ACME Journal: An International E-Journal for
Critical Geographies 2009, 8 (3), 484-493. Available online at www.acme-
journal.org/vol8/Wood09.pdf [accessed on 14 May 2012]
Zimmer, M (2007) The Panoptical Gaze of Web Search Engines; Google as an
Infrastructure of Dataveillance. Available online
http://michaelzimmer.org/files/Zimmer%20Aalborg%20talk.pdf[accessed on
20 May 2012]