Surveillance---Doesn’t Require Intent

Surveillance---Doesn’t Require Intent

“Surveillance” is gathering data---it doesn’t require preventive intent

Surveillance

But whereas the ability of communities, families, and local associations to track the affairs of individuals has widely declined in the world's "advanced" societies, institutional surveillance has lately made vast strides. Throughout the world's prosperous liberal societies, people have come to expect their dealings with all sorts of large organizations to be mediated by their "records." These records are ongoing products of past interactions between institutions and individuals—and of active and resourceful efforts by the institutions to gather data on individuals. The result is that all sorts of corporate and state performances that individuals expect—from allocation of consumer credit and social security benefits to the control of crime and terrorism—turn on one or another form of institutional surveillance. Perhaps needless to say. the outcomes of such surveillance make vast differences in what Max Weber would have called the "life chances" of the people involved.

No twenty-first-century society, save perhaps the very poorest, is altogether without such large-scale collection, processing and use of data on individuals' lives. Indeed, we might arguably regard the extent of penetration of large-scale institutions into the details of people's lives as one measure of modernity (if not post-modernity). The feet that these activities are so consequential—for the institutions, and for the individuals concerned—makes anxiety and opposition over their repercussions on privacy values inevitable.

Despite the slightly foreboding associations of the term, surveillance need not be unfriendly in its effects on the individuals subjected to it. In the intensive care ward at the hospital, most patients probably do not resent the intrusive and constant surveillance directed at them. Seekers of social security benefits or credit accounts will normally be quick to call attention to their recorded eligibility for these things—in effect demanding performances based on surveillance. Indeed, it is a measure of the pervasiveness of surveillance in our world that we reflexively appeal to our "records" in seeking action from large institutions.

But even relatively benevolent forms of surveillance require some tough-minded measures of institutional enforcement vis-a-m individuals who seek services. Allocating social security payments to those who deserve them—as judged by the letter of the law—inevitably means hoi allocating such benefits to other would-be claimants. Providing medical benefits, either through government or private insurance, means distinguishing between those entitled to the benefits and others. When the good things of life are passed around, unless everyone is held to be equally entitled, the logic of surveillance demands distinctions between the deserving, and others. Ami this in turn sets m motion requirements for positive identification, close record-keeping, precise recording of each individual case history, and so on (see also Webster, this volume).

“Surveillance” includes routine data collection---they exclude the majority of contemporary activity and over-focus on dramatic manifestations

Broad interpretations of “surveillance” are key to advance discussion of the topic beyond a limited fixation on overt monitoring---that’s critical to capture the essence of modern, bureaucratic information gathering

p. 3-4

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereafter 9/11) now inevitably shape any discussion of surveillance (Lyon 2003). While those events intensified anti-terrorist monitoring regimes, surveillance against terrorism is only one use of monitoring systems. Surveillance is now a general tool used to accomplish any number of institutional goals. The proliferation of surveillance in myriad contexts of everyday life suggests the need to examine the political consequences of such developments.

Rather than seek a single factor that is driving the expansion of surveillance, or detail one overriding political implication of such developments, the volume is concerned with demonstrating both the multiplicity of influences on surveillance and the complexity of the political implications of these developments. Contributors to this volume are concerned with the broad social remit of surveillance - as a tool of governance in military conflict, health, commerce, security and entertainment - and the new political responses it engenders.

“Surveillance” doesn’t require intent

Surveillance---Systematic---1NC

“Surveillance” must be systematic---one-shot, random recording isn’t topical

According to the report prepared for the Information Commissioner, surveillance can be thought of as a set of activities that share certain characteristics:

■ The attention is first purposeful; the watching has a point that can be justified, in terms of control, entitlement, or some other publicly agreed goal.

■ Then it is routine; it happens as we all go about our daily business, it's in the weave of life.

■ But surveillance is also systematic; it is planned and carried out according to a schedule that is rational, not merely random.

■ Lastly, it is focused; surveillance gets down to details. While some surveillance depends on aggregate data, much refers to identifiable persons, whose data are collected, stored, transmitted, retrieved, compared, mined and traded." (Emphasis in the original.)

What this means is that walking through a tourist area videotaping your surroundings with your Handycam video recorder is not considered surveillance because it is a one-off event that records randomly selected things for your own pleasure. In contrast, a camera installed at a strategic spot along that same street to film the patrons who routinely come out of a local bar intoxicated and proceed to urinate on the street or vandalize local businesses is purposeful (identifying wrongdoers), routine, systematic, and focused. Similarly, a proud parent videotaping his child playing with her nanny in a park on a sunny Sunday afternoon would not fit the definition of surveillance. Installing a camera at a daycare to enable parents to view the interaction of their children with their caregivers on demand would be considered surveillance. Many parents insert the so-called "nanny cams" surreptitiously in items like teddy bears to ensure that their children are taken care of in a manner that they find appropriate. Instances of abuse caught by this surveillance have been posted to the Internet, creating predictable rage among those viewing the videos — an example of how panopticon surveillance can become synopticon surveillance. While the latter brings with it its own set of problems, it gives hope to those who fear that surveillance will result in the top-down surveillance described by George Orwell.

Voting issue---

1. Limits---they explode the topic to include limited, single-event recording of specific events. Each has distinct advantages and significantly expands the research burden.

2. Ground---our interpretation forces the Aff to defend broad, system-wide changes that force a dramatic departure from the status quo---that’s key to unique links on a topic that’s contemporary and constantly changing

Surveillance---Systematic---Interpretation

“Surveillance” must be sustained over time

Surveillance Ethics

One-shot data collection is not “surveillance”---it must be systemic and ongoing

4.1. Time as a Variable

“Surveillance” is ongoing, not time-limited

3.1 Surveillance encompasses the processes of data collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination that are:

(a) undertaken on an ongoing basis (i.e. there is a defined but not time-limited cycle of processing),

(b) provide measures of population or group health status or determinants of health (hazards, exposures, behaviours) against historical or geographical baselines/comparators or defined levels/triggers for action, and

(c) for which there is an agreed and explicit set of actions, timeframes and accountabilities for taking those actions, that will be initiated or informed by the outputs.

3.2 This definition of scope, which is irrespective of disease type (i.e. is equally applicable to assessing acute and chronic disease occurrence and risks), clearly distinguishes surveillance from (most) research, which is usually time-limited and for which there is not generally an a priori agreed set of actions, and accountabilities for taking those actions, based on the outcome of the research. The continuous or ongoing nature of surveillance also differentiates it from other ad hoc surveys and analyses (particularly secondary analyses) that are often undertaken to inform the initial stages of policy development or planning, or the reevaluation of policy. It distinguishes surveillance from clinical audit and service evaluation because surveillance generally provides health status (or health determinant status) measures related to a defined population, irrespective of whether or what interventions that population might be in receipt of, rather than provides measures against standards for individuals defined in terms of a specific health service intervention.

“Surveillance” is continuous observation

“Surveillance” must be systematic---one-shot observation is “reconnaissance”---they ruin precision

5 ‐ Surveillance and reconnaissance refer to the means by which the information is observed. Surveillance is “systematic” observation to collect whatever data is available, while reconnaissance is a specific mission performed to obtain specific data.

Military Transformation: Intelligence Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (Jan 2003)

TABLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF ISR

As indicated previously, different definitions of terms and associated interpretations of their meaning allow the DoD components, including the intelligence components of the military departments and combatant commands and the combat support agencies that are part of the IC, to choose the one(s) they prefer. This, in turn, produces a lack of clarity and causes confusion about what is meant by both COIN and ISR.

Surveillance---Many Forms

“Surveillance” is close observation---it can be done in a number of forms, be mass or individual, and overt or covert

Surveillance

The Oxford English Dictionary defines surveillance as "close observation, especially of a suspected person." Methods of observation include watching, listening, filming, recording, tracking, listing people and entering their details onto databases. The different types of surveillance carried out include mass surveillance of large groups of people as well as targeted observation of specific individuals. Surveillance may be carried out openly, for example, using closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in public places, or covertly; using undercover agents.

“Surveillance” is more than visual observation

Part One—Key definitions

BACKGROUND

18. The term "surveillance" is used in different ways. A literal definition of surveillance as "watching over" indicates monitoring the behaviour of persons, objects, or systems. However surveillance is not only a visual process which involves looking at people and things. Surveillance can be undertaken in a wide range of ways involving a variety of technologies. The instruments of surveillance include closed-circuit television (CCTV), the interception of telecommunications ("wiretapping"), covert activities by human agents, heat-seeking and other sensing devices, body scans, technology for tracking movement, and many others.

Close observation

Definition of surveillance in English:

noun

Close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal:

he found himself put under surveillance by military intelligence

Many types of info collection are “surveillance

SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance is the clandestine collection and analysis of information about persons or organizations, or put another way, methods of watching or listening without being detected. Most surveillance has physical and electronic aspects, and is preceded by reconnaissance, and not infrequently, by surreptitious entry (to plant a monitoring device). Surveillance can be a valuable and essential tool in combating a wide range of sophisticated criminal activities, including such offenses as kidnapping, gambling, narcotics, prostitution, and terrorism. There are many different types of surveillance. Peterson and Zamir (2000), for example, list seventeen types: audio, infra/ultra-sound, sonar, radio, radar, infrared, visual, aerial, ultraviolent, x-ray, chemical and biological, biometrics, animals, genetic, magnetic, cryptologic, and computers. A shorter list would include four general types of surveillance: visual; audio, moving, and contact. Here is an outline of the four types from that shorter list:

Data collection is a primary form of “surveillance”

David Lyon describes governmental and corporative surveillance as the “focused, systematic, and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection, or direction” (Lyon 2007, 14). The most common form this practice takes in the context of information and communication technologies (hereinafter ICT) is still so-called data surveillance, which implies the collection and retention of information about an “identifiable individual”, often from multiple sources3, which help recognize multiple activities and establish a pattern of behavior in both the virtual and material realms (Stanley & Steinhardt 2003, 3). Although less common and fairly recent, institutional Internet surveillance may also acquire the shape of media surveillance, done by means of – recognized or ignored – image (still or video) and sound hoarding through a subject’s personal apparatus such as private webcams and microphones, as well as screen-recording (RWB 2013, 9-33; Stanley & Steinhardt 2003, 2-4)4.

Surveillance---Individuated

“Surveillance” must be individuated---general overlook isn’t topical

Rather than starting with what intelligence services or police may define as surveillance it is best to begin with a set of activities that have a similar characteristic and work out from there. Where we find purposeful, routine, systematic and focused attention paid to personal details, for the sake of control, entitlement, management, influence or protection, we are looking at surveillance.90

The Report’s definition also requires the observation to be systematic in nature. Unlike the historic concept of surveillance described by Lyons, with people watching over each other, this definition presupposes a more organized and comprehensive examination. The only real controversial component of this definition is the requirement that the surveillance be routine. While such a definition may characterize surveillance in the United Kingdom, it is unclear why occasional surveillance could not occur. Despite this quibble, the Report’s definition provides a good starting point for understanding surveillance. It links together the concepts of observation and the compiling and processing of the data generated by observation.

Surveillance---Not Just Individuated

“Surveillance” can be personal or mass

Data Surveillance

Information privacy is valued very highly by individuals. But it is under threat from particular kinds of management practices, and from advances in technology. This section explains the concept of 'data surveillance'. To do so, it is first necessary to define some underlying terms.

Surveillance is the systematic investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more persons.

The primary purpose of surveillance is generally to collect information about the individuals concerned, their activities, or their associates. There may be a secondary intention to deter a whole population from undertaking some kinds of activity.

Surveillance---Crime

“Surveillance” is watching related to crime

surveillance

noun [U] UK /səˈveɪ.ləns/ US /sɚ-/

› the careful watching of a person or place, especially by the police or army, because of a crime that has happened or is expected:

The police have kept the nightclub under surveillance because of suspected illegal drug activity.

More banks are now installing surveillance cameras.

Surveillance---Not Just Crime

“Surveillance” is more than observation of criminals

Traditional Surveillance

Information boundaries and contests are found in all societies and beyond that in all living systems. Humans are curious and also seek to protect their informational borders. To survive, individuals and groups engage in, and guard against, surveillance. Seeking information about others (whether within, or beyond one’s group) is characteristic of all societies. However the form, content and rules of surveillance vary considerably --from relying on informers, to intercepting smoke signals, to taking satellite photographs.

In the 15th century religious surveillance was a powerful and dominant form. This involved the search for heretics, devils and witches, as well as the more routine policing of religious consciousness, rituals and rules (e.g., adultery and wedlock). Religious organizations also kept basic records of births, marriages, baptisms and deaths.

In the 16th century, with the appearance and growth of the embryonic nation-state, which had both new needs and a developing capacity to gather and use information, political surveillance became increasingly important relative to religious surveillance. Over the next several centuries there was a gradual move to a “policed” society in which agents of the state and the economy came to exercise control over ever-wider social, geographical and temporal areas. Forms such as an expanded census, police and other registries, identity documents and inspections appeared which blurred the line between direct political surveillance and a neutral (even in some ways) more benign, governance or administration. Such forms were used for taxation, conscription, law enforcement, border control (both immigration and emigration), and later to determine citizenship, eligibility for democratic participation and in social planning. In the 19th and 20th centuries with the growth of the factory system, national and international economies, bureaucracy and the regulated and welfare states, the content of surveillance expanded yet again to the collection of detailed personal information in order to enhance productivity and commerce, to protect public health, to determine conformity with an ever-increasing number of laws and regulations and to determine eligibility for various welfare and intervention programs such as Social Security and the protection of children. Government uses in turn have been supplemented (and on any quantitative scale likely overtaken) by contemporary private sector uses of surveillance at work, in the market place and in medical, banking and insurance settings. The contemporary commercial state with its’ emphasis on consumption is inconceivable without the massive collection of personal data. A credentialed state, bureaucratically organized around the certification of identity, experience and competence is dependent on the collection of personal information. Reliance on surveillance technologies for authenticating identity has increased as remote non face-to-face interactions across distances and interactions with strangers have increased. Modern urban society contrasts markedly with the small town or rural community where face-to-face interaction with those personally known was more common. When individuals and organizations don’t know the reputation of, or can’t be sure with whom they are dealing, there is a turn to surveillance technology to increase authenticity and accountability.

The microchip and computer are of course central to surveillance developments and in turn reflect broader social forces set in motion with industrialization. The increased availability of personal information is a tiny strand in the constant expansion in knowledge witnessed in the last two centuries, and of the centrality of information to the workings of contemporary society.

The New Surveillance

The traditional forms of surveillance noted in the opening paragraph contrast in important ways with what can be called the new surveillance, a form that became increasingly prominent toward the end of the 20th century. The new social surveillance can be defined as, "scrutiny through the use of technical means to extract or create personal or group data, whether from individuals or contexts". Examples include: video cameras; computer matching, profiling and data mining; work, computer and electronic location monitoring; DNA analysis; drug tests; brain scans for lie detection; various self-administered tests and thermal and other forms of imaging to reveal what is behind walls and enclosures.

Their interpretation is outdated

The concise Oxford Dictionary defines surveillance as “close observation”, especially of a suspected person”. From the above definition, one can deduce that surveillance is supposed to apply to “a suspected person”. But the big question is , is that the case in our today's world? Electronic surveillance has become a common phenomenon especially in the developed world as a way of monitoring the activities of every member of the society irrespective of whether or not they are a suspect. Again, in our present day world filled with all kinds of modern technology, surveillance could be carried out from afar instead of only from “close observation”, as the dictionary meaning suggests. Satellite images and remote monitoring of communications via highpowered infra-red technologies can be used for long distance surveillance activities. Thus, governments and big corporations have made surveillance part of everyday life, in that it includes, but is not limited to, hidden cameras in an ATM machines, data bases of all employees in a particular company, scanners that picks mobile phone communications, computer programs that monitor keystrokes, or key words and video cameras that parents can use, to monitor, their children at a day care centre.

Surveillance---Not a Specific Person

“Surveillance” can be broad---their definition is outdated

A deficient definition

The dictionary definition also implies a clear distinction between the object of surveillance and the person carrying it out. In an age of servants listening behind closed doors, binoculars and telegraphic interceptions, that separation made sense. It was easy to separate the watcher from the person watched. Yet self-monitoring has emerged as an important theme, independent of the surveilling of another. In the hope of creating self-restraint, threats of social control (i.e. the possibility of getting caught) arc well-publicized with mass media techniques.

A general ethos of self-surveillance is also encouraged by the availability of home products such as those that test for alcohol level, pregnancy, menopause and AIDS. Self-surveillance merges the line between the surveilled and the surveillant. In some cases we see parallel or co-monitoring, involving the subject and an external agent.: The differentiation of surveillance into ever more specialized roles is sometimes matched by a rarely studied de-differentiation or generalization of surveillance to non-specialized roles. For example regardless of their job, retail store employees are trained to identify shoplifters and outdoor utility workers are trained to look for signs of drug manufacturing.

The term 'close observation’ also fails to capture contemporary practices. Surveillance may be carried out from afar, as with satellite images or the remote monitoring of communications and work. Nor need it be close as in detailed - much initial surveillance involves superficial scans looking for patterns of interest to be pursued later in greater detail.

The dated nature of the definition is further illustrated in its seeming restriction lo visual means as implied in 'observation*. The eyes do contain the vast majority of the body's sense receptors and die visual is a master metaphor for the other senses (e.g., saying 'I sec' for understanding or being able to 'sec through people'). Indeed 'seeing through' is a convenient short hand for the new surveillance.

To be sure the visual is usually an clement of surveillance, even when it is not the primary means of data collection (e.g. written accounts of observations, events and conversations, or the conversion to text or images of measurements from heat, sound or movement). Yet to "observe' a text or a printout is in many ways different from a detective or supervisor directly observing behavior. The eye as the major means of direct surveillance is increasingly joined or replaced by hearing, touching and smelling. The use of multiple senses and sources of data is an important characteristic of much of the new surveillance.

This definition of the new surveillance excludes the routine, non-technological surveillance that is a part of everyday life such as looking before crossing the street or seeking the source of a sudden noise or of smoke. An observer on a nude beach or police interrogating a cooperative suspect would also be excluded, because in these cases the information is volunteered and the unaided senses are sufficient

I do not include a verb such as 'observe' in the definition because the nature of the means (or the senses involved) suggests subtypes and issues for analysis and ought not to be foreclosed by a definition, (e.g. how do visual, auditory, text and other forms of surveillance compare with respect to factors such as intrusiveness or validity?). If such a verb is needed I prefer 'attend to’ or 'to regard' rather than observe with its tilt toward the visual.

While the above definition captures some common elements among new surveillance means, contemporary tactics are enormously varied and would include:

• a parent monitoring a baby on closed circuit television during commercials or through a day care center webcast;

• a data base for employers containing the names of persons who have filed workman compensation claims;

• a video monitor in a department store scanning customers and matching their images to those of suspected shoplifters;

• a supervisor monitoring employee's e-mail and phone communication;

• a badge signaling where an employee is at all times;

• a hidden camera in an ATM machine;

• a computer program that monitors the number of keystrokes or looks for key words or patterns;

• a thermal imaging device aimed at the exterior of a house from across the street

• analyzing hair to determine drug use;

• a self-test for level of alcohol in one's system;

• a scanner that picks up cellular and cordless phone communication;

• mandatory provision of a DNA sample;

• the polygraph or monitoring brain waves to determine truthfulness;

• Caller ID.

Surveillance---Includes Remote Monitoring

“Surveillance” does not have to be “close” observation---remote monitoring is more common

A deficient definition

The dictionary definition also implies a clear distinction between the object of surveillance and the person carrying it out. In an age of servants listening behind closed doors, binoculars and telegraphic interceptions, that separation made sense. It was easy to separate the watcher from the person watched. Yet self-monitoring has emerged as an important theme, independent of the surveilling of another. In the hope of creating self-restraint, threats of social control (i.e. the possibility of getting caught) arc well-publicized with mass media techniques.

A general ethos of self-surveillance is also encouraged by the availability of home products such as those that test for alcohol level, pregnancy, menopause and AIDS. Self-surveillance merges the line between the surveilled and the surveillant. In some cases we see parallel or co-monitoring, involving the subject and an external agent.: The differentiation of surveillance into ever more specialized roles is sometimes matched by a rarely studied de-differentiation or generalization of surveillance to non-specialized roles. For example regardless of their job, retail store employees are trained to identify shoplifters and outdoor utility workers are trained to look for signs of drug manufacturing.

The term 'close observation’ also fails to capture contemporary practices. Surveillance may be carried out from afar, as with satellite images or the remote monitoring of communications and work. Nor need it be close as in detailed - much initial surveillance involves superficial scans looking for patterns of interest to be pursued later in greater detail.

The dated nature of the definition is further illustrated in its seeming restriction lo visual means as implied in 'observation*. The eyes do contain the vast majority of the body's sense receptors and die visual is a master metaphor for the other senses (e.g., saying 'I sec' for understanding or being able to 'sec through people'). Indeed 'seeing through' is a convenient short hand for the new surveillance.

To be sure the visual is usually an clement of surveillance, even when it is not the primary means of data collection (e.g. written accounts of observations, events and conversations, or the conversion to text or images of measurements from heat, sound or movement). Yet to "observe' a text or a printout is in many ways different from a detective or supervisor directly observing behavior. The eye as the major means of direct surveillance is increasingly joined or replaced by hearing, touching and smelling. The use of multiple senses and sources of data is an important characteristic of much of the new surveillance.

A better definition of the new surveillance is the use of technical means to extract or create personal data. This may be taken from individuals or contexts. In this definition the use of 'technical means’ to extract and create the information implies the ability to go beyond what is offered to the unaided senses or voluntarily reported. Many of the examples extend the senses by using material artifacts or software of some kind, but the technical means for rooting out can also be deception, as with informers and undercover police. The use of 'contexts' along with 'individuals' recognizes that much modern surveillance also looks at settings and patterns of relationships. .Meaning may reside in cross-classifying discrete sources of data (as with computer matching and profiling) that in and of themselves arc not of revealing. Systems as well as persons arc of interest.

Surveillance---Covert

“Surveillance” must be covert

3.7 SURVEILLANCE

According to Buckwalter (1983:1), surveillance is the covert observation of places, persons and vehicles for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the identities of subjects. The term surveillance comes from the French word surveiller which derives from sur (over) and veiller (to watch); literally, it means to ‘watch over’ (Buckwalter, 1983:3).

Tyska and Fennelly (1999:165) define surveillance as a secretive and continuous watching of persons, vehicles, places and objects, to obtain information concerning the activities and identities of an individual or conditions. Van Rooyen (2001:99) defines surveillance as the careful and continuous watching of something or someone, carried on in a secretive or discreet manner, in order to obtain information on a subject.

All the above authors agree that surveillance has to do with watching in a secretive manner, with the aim of obtaining or gathering information. Tyska and Fennelly (1999:164), further say that the effort begins with determining just what one’s objectives are for conducting surveillance, as surveillance is a way to find an individual by watching his or her associates and friends. When seeking detailed data about a person’s activity, there is no better method than to use frequent surveillance.

“Surveillance” is covert activity

“Surveillance” must be covert

SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance---Includes Overt Monitoring

“Surveillance” can be overt or covert

Limiting “surveillance” to only covert action is outdated

1.2 Electronic surveillance

Surveillance---Excludes Disease

Domestic surveillance is distinct from disease surveillance.

Surveillance---Excludes Animals

Domestic surveillance is of non-human animals.

Surveillance---Precision Impacts

Precision’s vital because surveillance debates shape policy

These randomly collected news clippings from newspapers give us an idea of how important the topic of surveillance has become for the media and for our lives. Economic and state surveillance seem to be two issues that affect the lives of all citizens worldwide. Economic organizations are entangled into both workplace/workforce surveillance and consumer surveillance in order to enable the capital accumulation process. State institutions (like the police, the military, secret services, social security and unemployment offices) are using surveillance for organizing and managing the population. All of this takes place in the context of the extension and intensification of surveillance (Ball and Webster, 2003; Lyon, 2003) in post-9/11 new imperialism that is afraid of terrorism and at the same time creates this phenomenon and in the context of neoliberal corporate regimes that subjugate ever larger spheres and parts of life to commodity logic (Harvey, 2003, p. 2005). If organizations are an important source and space of surveillance, then it is important to understand how surveillance can be defined.

Surveillance---Public Health Definitions Bad

Their interpretation is from a public health source---reject that---it’s imprecise on a public policy topic