Talk:Surveillance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Surveillance, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Other topics for this article (and possibly others)

  • Unique numbers
    • A history of the use of UIDs
      • by the Nazis
  • Data collation methods
    • Credit card transactions
    • Number plate recognition
    • Barcodes and RFID
  • Effects on democracy
    • Free voting
    • Operation of political groups
    • Abuse of statistics
      • Automated gerrymandering, e.g. in Texas and other states
      • Manipulation of voting registers
  • The PATRIOT act and infiltration of political groups

[edit] Origin of the text of the article

Much of the text of this article is taken from http://secdocs.net/manual/lp-sec/scb7.html which is licensed under the GFDL, and hence can be used in Wikipedia

[edit] Is the article paranoid, realistic, cautious or just unbalanced?

A lot of this text is written from the viewpoint of a professional paranoid, and it may need editing for NPOV.

Who wouldn't be paranoid? I suppose it would be NPOV to add some stuff about how governments and business rely on information in order to operate efficiently, that only people with something to hide care about the issue, whatever, but I wouldn't be the one to write it. Ortolan88
Stating that "only people with something to hide care" would certainly not be NPOV. You would be ignoring the viewpoint that privacy is an inherent right of man.
Irony, my friend, irony.
That said, the idea of NPOV is to represent the subject fairly and plenty of people (lots of them in the current administration) think just what I said, that the government has the right to all information it can gather to protect the people and that only the guilty need fear that. I don't agree, but I can see that such might fit into this article. Ortolan88
Typical cop reasoning. Nevermind the 4th Amendment.  :-P --KQ
It's the cops who do the surveillance. Do you really think there ought to be nothing in this article about why they do it? You're tempting me to write it myself, after all. I'm a Bill of Rights absolutist, myself, free speech, separate church and state, right to bear arms, no unreasonable search and seizure, no soldiers in the house, ninth and tenth amendments, the whole ball of wax, but I can see where my enemies are coming from, which, I would think, gives me some advantage. Ortolan88
While the article might be accurate rather than paranoid, it certainly skews towards a particular angle on the subject, reading more like a how-to guide to countersurveillance, and seems to have a single authorial voice. There's no historical background, no Foucault, no Bentham, no discussion of surveillance in recent/current events, and a rather glaring lack of references for such a long article. It could use some serious editing to remove the authorial voice and to create a more comprehensive look at the concept of surveillance. -AK who isn't actually registered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.92.60 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Totalitarian, centralised surviellance and "the transparent society"

Totalitarians aren't the only ones who shy away from notions of privacy. There's also the growing "transparency" movement, as typified by David Brin in his book The Transparent Society. The idea there is not that the government has the right to spy on everyone, but that everyone has the right to spy on everyone else; i.e., that the solution to government intrusion is not to turn off the cameras but to point them back at the watchers, to keep them from abusing their power. I even gave a short talk on the subject here. --LDC

[edit] Too much emphasis on technology

This article is excessively oriented towards technological forms of surveillance. It desperately needs some balance in terms of discussing the more basic form of surveillance throughout history, which is simply having people spy on targets and collect information by observing them and/or following them around. Instead, when it does get around to discussing "human operatives", the article focuses on the context of infiltrating organizations and obtaining information through "social engineering techniques". --Michael Snow 03:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Surveillance

Working on an addition - draft stage

Natural surveillance is a term used in "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Practices"(CPTED) and "Defensible Space" models for crime prevention. These models rely on the ability to influence offender decisions preceding criminal acts. Research into criminal behavior demonstrates that the decision to offend or not to offend is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues to reward or ease of entry. Consistent with this research CPTED based strategies emphasise enhancing the perceived risk of detection and apprehension.

Natural surveillance limits the opportunity for crime by taking steps to increase the perception that people can be seen. Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction. Potential offenders feel increased scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes. Natural surveillance is typically free of cost however its effectiveness to deter crime varies with the individual offender.

Jane Jacobs, North American editor, urban activist, and author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, formulated the natural surveillance strategy based on her work in New York's Greenwich Village. Natural surveillance is naturally occurring. As people are moving around an area, they will be able to observe what is going on around them, provided the area is open and well lit. Supporting a diversity of uses for an area is highly effective. Other ways to promote natural surveillance include low landscaping, street designs that encourage pedestrian use, removing hiding and lurking places, and placing high risk targets, such as expensive or display items, in plain view of legitimate users, such as near a receptionist or sales clerk.

Included in the design are features that maximize visibility of people, parking areas and building entrances: doors and windows that look out on to streets and parking areas; low landscaping, see-through barriers (glass brick walls, picket fences), pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and streets, and front porches. Designing nighttime lighting is particularly important: uniform high intensity "carpet" lighting of large areas is discouraged, especially where lights glare into (and discourage) observers eyes. In its place is feature lighting that draws the observer's focus to access control points and potential hiding areas. Area lighting is still used, but light sources are typically placed lower to the ground, at a higher density, and with lower intensity and more controlled glare than the lighting it is designed to replace.

Any architectural design that enhances the chance that a potential offender will be, or might be, seen is a form of natural surveillance. Often, it is not just the fact that the offender might be seen that matters. It is that the offender "thinks" they will be seen that can help deter the opportunity for crime.

References
Jacobs, Jane (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. ISBN: 0679600477


revised Paleorthid 06:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Article Split?

Perhaps the Personal counter-surveillance section could be split into its own article on counter surveillance. Thoughts? Krzypntbllr 03:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super secure

Super secure, but hope one doesn't forget one's BIOS passwd :-)

[edit] Active editors: Have you thought of writing...

...an article about GPS/SMS bugs? These tiny devices, hidden somewhere at your car, determine its position via GPS and transmit the coordinates via GSM's (or other standards') SMS service to your surveillant(s). They are apparently widely abused by the LEC, secret services or private snoops, thereby infringing on basic civil liberties. Also the aspect of possible counter-weapons could be discussed.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System and check out '14: GPS tracking'. Feel free to contact me directly, if you prefer.


Michael

http://worldimprover.net/EN/en8.html


[edit] More emphasis on other elements of "Surveillance"

This article seems to focous almost exlusivly on public & political surveillance by government and corporations. Could more mention be made of types (ei: Military surveillance, Economic surveillance, Environmental surveillance, Home surveillance, celestial surveillance, etc)? -- MCG 05 Sept 06

[edit] Wikipedia Isn't a 'How To' Guide

Hi all. I think it's a mistake to have such a detailed section on how to conduct counter-surveillance. Apart from this not being the purpose of Wikipedia, if someone really does think they're under surveillance it would be a lot safer to get professional assistance rather than trying it yourself. Also, I would agree that there should perhaps be a split between counter-surveillance article and surveillance. Blaise Joshua 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is not encylopedic. I think the section should be removed or considerably shortened. I'll give a couple days in case anyone wants to object, if not I'll remove the section. Draglikepull 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone's taken it down. The page looks much better without it. Blaise Joshua 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Useful external links

The guide I found is not a WP, does not promote a product or company (or even me) and I thought it v. useful when I was researching this topic. As it’s not ‘searchable’ I feel a link here is important.

[edit] References

These two books:

  • Jain, A. K.; A. Ross & S. Pankanti (June 2006), "Biometrics: A Tool for Information Security", IEEE Transactions On Information Forensics And Security 1st (2)
  • Greenemeier, L. "Video is getting smart enough to be suspicious." Manhasset, 1114, 32 (2006)

were added to the "references" section without any content being added to the article. Are they actually citation references (and if so for which assertions do they support) or are they more like further reading books (and if so, are they books others would recommend too)? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

After the recent edit from pronounced /səˌveɪəns/ or /səˌveɪl(ə)ns/ to /sɚˈveɪəns/ or /sɚˈveɪləns/ the new information supplied no longer matches the citation. I am about to remove the now-incorrect citation for a {{fact}} request.

The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary offers four variations in English: /sɜ:ˈveɪləns/ /sɜ:ˈveɪljəns/ /səˈveɪəns/ or /səˈveɪjəns/ . (It also suggests that the French pronunciation may still be used.)

Old Moonraker 09:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The OED has specifically RP pronunciations. The link to the IPA key shows how that corresponds to the more general Wikipedia notation. kwami 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Is it a mistake, then, to use the OED as the citation? I was considering using the OED version, and citation, while pointing out that it's British English (or RP if editors prefer), or is this too elaborate?
The new tag/link is an improvement, BTW. --Old Moonraker 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a mistake, any more than using Webster's is a mistake when Webster's doesn't use the IPA. There isn't any real difference between RP and GA in this case, and it would take an additional ref. to show there was. kwami 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postal service

Comment by 203.123.38.149 moved here from the article page (diff)

But how is this related to Surveillance????

My response - it refers to surveillance of written correspondence and packages while they travel through the postal service. The section might benefit from a bit of well sourced expansion. -- SiobhanHansa 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also link

I've removed the link to Television licensing in the United Kingdom#Licence fee enforcement, because it only has the slightest reference to surveillance technology, and in all other respects is not even peripherally relevant to this article. It is no more relevant than, say, the article on search warrants. Oli Filth(talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior", as the article states, and regardless of technology. Television licensing in the United Kingdom is an example of its application on a population scale, in both sociological and technological terms. 86.138.62.16 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But so what? Why not Taxation, or Vehicle licences, or Child protection, or Unemployment benefits, or ... ? As I said, this is only peripherally/incidentally relevant. As an awful analogy, we don't link to all examples of things that are yellow in the Yellow article. Oli Filth(talk) 08:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We agree on one thing: your analogy is awful. Can't you think of a better one? 86.138.62.16 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.219.171 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:SineBot 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see from SineBot's work that Wikipedia is keen on surveillance, too. 86.138.62.16 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.240.198 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:SineBot 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)