Editing Surveillance (section)

==Controversy==
[[File:Bansky one nation under cctv.jpg|thumb|right|Graffiti expressing concern about the proliferation of video surveillance]]

===Support===

Supporters of surveillance systems believe that these tools can help protect society from [[terrorists]] and [[criminals]]. They argue that surveillance can reduce crime by three means: by deterrence, by observation, and by reconstruction. Surveillance can deter by increasing the chance of being caught, and by revealing the [[modus operandi]]. This requires a minimal level of invasiveness.<ref name ="Deviant Behaviour - Socially accepted observation of behaviour for security">[http://www.fp7-tactics.eu/files/documents/Deviant%20Behaviour-Socially%20accepted%20observation%20of%20behaviour%20for%20security.pdf Deviant Behaviour – Socially accepted observation of behaviour for security] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141223104500/http://www.fp7-tactics.eu/files/documents/Deviant%20Behaviour-Socially%20accepted%20observation%20of%20behaviour%20for%20security.pdf |date=December 23, 2014 }}, Jeroen van Rest</ref>

Another method on how surveillance can be used to fight criminal activity is by linking the information stream obtained from them to a recognition system (for instance, a camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system). This can for instance auto-recognize fugitives and direct police to their location.

A distinction here has to be made however on the type of surveillance employed. Some people that support video surveillance in city streets may not support indiscriminate telephone taps and vice versa. Besides the types, the way in which this surveillance is done also matters a lot; i.e. indiscriminate telephone taps are supported by much fewer people than say telephone taps done only to people suspected of engaging in illegal activities.

Surveillance can also be used to give human operatives a tactical advantage through improved situational awareness, or through the use of automated processes, i.e. [[video analytics]]. Surveillance can help reconstruct an incident and prove guilt through the availability of footage for forensics experts. Surveillance can also influence subjective security if surveillance resources are visible or if the consequences of surveillance can be felt.

Some of the surveillance systems (such as the camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system mentioned above) can also have other uses besides countering criminal activity. For instance, it can help in retrieving runaway children, abducted or missing adults and mentally disabled people. 
Other supporters simply believe that there is nothing that can be done about the loss of privacy, and that people must become accustomed to having no privacy. As [[Sun Microsystems]] CEO [[Scott McNealy]] said: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."<ref name="sun-getoverit">{{cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538|title=Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'|last=Sprenger|first=Polly|date=January 26, 1999|work=Wired Magazine|access-date=March 20, 2009}}</ref><ref name="bw-getoverit">{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm |title=Privacy |last=Baig |first=Edward |author2=Marcia Stepanek |author3=Neil Gross |date=April 5, 1999 |work=Business Week |access-date=March 20, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081017102602/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm |archive-date=October 17, 2008 |df=mdy }}</ref>

Another common argument is: "[[nothing to hide argument|If you aren't doing something wrong then you don't have anything to fear]]." That is,  one does not have a right to privacy regarding illegal activities, while those following the law suffer no harm from surveillance and so have no standing to object to it. Beyond the heroically self-serving identification of what is wrong with what is illegal, the ethical fly in this ointment is the tacit premise that the individual has no duty to preserve the health of the state—the antithesis of the principle that only the consent of the governed can adequately serve as the moral foundation of a (just) state and warrant the vast gulf between its power (and agency) and that of the individual. <ref>{{cite journal|author=Solove, Daniel|title='I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy|journal=San Diego Law Review|year=2007|volume=44|page=745|ssrn=998565|author-link=Daniel J. Solove}}</ref>

===Opposition===
[[File:Sheung Yuet Road lamppost after protesters destroy 20190824.jpg|thumb|Surveillance lamppost brought down in Hong Kong by citizens fearing state surveillance]]
[[File:UncleSamListensIn.jpg|thumb|upright|An elaborate [[Graffiti|graffito]] in Columbus, Ohio, depicting state surveillance of [[telecommunications]] ]]

With the advent of programs such as the [[Total Information Awareness]] program and [[ADVISE]], technologies such as [[NarusInsight|high speed surveillance computers]] and [[Surveillance#Biometric|biometrics]] software, and laws such as the [[Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act]], governments now possess an unprecedented ability to monitor the activities of their subjects.<ref name="us-surveillance-soc">{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/index.html|title=Is the U.S. Turning Into a Surveillance Society?|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=March 13, 2009}}</ref> Many [[civil rights]] and [[privacy]] groups, such as the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] and [[American Civil Liberties Union]], have expressed concern that by allowing continual increases in government surveillance of citizens we will end up in a [[mass surveillance]] society, with extremely limited, or non-existent political and/or personal freedoms. Fears such as this have led to numerous lawsuits such as ''[[Hepting v. AT&T]]''.<ref name="us-surveillance-soc"/><ref name="bigger-monster">{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/aclu_report_bigger_monster_weaker_chains.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/aclu_report_bigger_monster_weaker_chains.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society|date=January 15, 2003|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=March 13, 2009}}</ref>

Some critics state that the claim made by supporters should be modified to read: "As long as we do what we're told, we have nothing to fear."<!-- [103] --> For instance, a person who is part of a political group which opposes the policies of the national government, might not want the government to know their names and what they have been reading, so that the government cannot easily subvert their organization, arrest, or kill them.<!-- [104] --> Other critics state that while a person might not have anything to hide right now, the government might later implement policies that they do wish to oppose, and that opposition might then be impossible due to mass surveillance enabling the government to identify and remove political threats.<!-- [103] --><!-- [105] --> Further, other critics point to the fact that most people ''do'' have things to hide.<!-- [102] --><!-- [104] --> For example, if a person is looking for a new job, they might not want their current employer to know this.<!-- [106] --> Also if an employer wishes total privacy to watch over their own employee and secure their financial information it may become impossible, and they may not wish to hire those under surveillance.

In December 2017, the Government of China took steps to oppose widespread surveillance by security-company cameras, webcams, and [[IP camera]]s after tens-of-thousands were made accessible for internet viewing by IT company [[Qihoo]]<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2124158/chinese-tech-firm-told-stop-watching-us-after-footage-security | title=Privacy fears over online surveillance footage broadcasts in China| date=2017-12-13}}</ref>

====Totalitarianism====
[[File:Sur-veillance-trafficcam-glog.jpg|thumb|upright|A traffic camera atop a high pole oversees a road in the Canadian city of Toronto.]]

Programs such as the [[Total Information Awareness]] program, and laws such as the [[Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act]] have led many groups to fear that society is moving towards a state of [[mass surveillance]] with severely limited personal, social, political freedoms, where dissenting individuals or groups will be strategically removed in [[COINTELPRO]]-like purges.<ref name="us-surveillance-soc"/><ref name="bigger-monster"/>

Kate Martin, of the Center For National Security Studies said of the use of military spy satellites being used to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens: "They are laying the bricks one at a time for a police state."<ref name="washpost-sat"/>

Some point to the blurring of lines between public and private places, and the privatization of places traditionally seen as public (such as shopping malls and industrial parks) as illustrating the increasing legality of collecting personal information.<ref name="Marx et al, 2007">{{cite journal|url=http://www.users.miamioh.edu/muschegw/Personal%20Info%20Borders%20Surveillance%20Marx%20Muschert.pdf |doi=10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112824 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170811145820/http://www.users.miamioh.edu/muschegw/Personal%20Info%20Borders%20Surveillance%20Marx%20Muschert.pdf |archive-date=August 11, 2017 |title=Personal Information, Borders, and the New Surveillance Studies |year=2007 |last1=Marx |first1=Gary T. |last2=Muschert |first2=Glenn W. |journal=[[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]] |volume=3 |pages=375–395 }}</ref> Traveling through many public places such as government offices is hardly optional for most people, yet consumers have little choice but to submit to companies' surveillance practices.<ref name="Agre, 2003">Agre, Philip E. (2003), [http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/bar-code.html "Your Face is not a bar code: arguments against automatic face recognition in public places"]. Retrieved November 14, 2004.</ref> Surveillance techniques are not created equal; among the many [[biometric]] identification technologies, for instance, [[face recognition]] requires the least cooperation. Unlike automatic fingerprint reading, which requires an individual to press a finger against a machine, this technique is subtle and requires little to no consent.<ref name="Agre, 2003" />

====Psychological/social effects====
{{See also|Hawthorne effect}}
Some critics, such as [[Michel Foucault]], believe that in addition to its obvious function of identifying and capturing individuals who are committing undesirable acts, surveillance also functions to create in everyone a feeling of always being watched, so that they become self-policing. This allows the State to control the populace without having to resort to physical force, which is expensive and otherwise problematic.<ref name="foucault-discipline">{{cite book|last=Foucault|first=Michel|author-link=Michel Foucault|title=Discipline and Punish|url=https://archive.org/details/disciplinepunish0000fouc|url-access=registration|publisher=Vintage Books|location=New York|year=1979|pages=[https://archive.org/details/disciplinepunish0000fouc/page/201 201]–202|isbn=9780394727677}}</ref>

With the development of digital technology, individuals have become increasingly perceptible to one another, as surveillance becomes virtual. Online surveillance is the utilization of the internet to observe one's activity.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Superconnected: the internet, digital media, and techno-social life|last=Chayko|first=Mary|author-link=Mary Chayko|publisher=Sage Publications|year=2017|location=New York, NY}}</ref> Corporations, citizens, and governments participate in tracking others' behaviours for motivations that arise out of business relations, to curiosity, to legality. In her book ''Superconnected'', [[Mary Chayko]] differentiates between two types of surveillance: vertical and horizontal.<ref name=":1" /> Vertical surveillance occurs when there is a dominant force, such as the government that is attempting to control or regulate the actions of a given society. Such powerful authorities often justify their incursions as a means to protect society from threats of violence or terrorism. Some individuals question when this becomes an infringement on civil rights.<ref name=":1" />

Horizontal diverges from vertical surveillance as the tracking shifts from an authoritative source to an everyday figure, such as a friend, coworker, or stranger that is interested in one's mundane activities.<ref name=":1" /> Individuals leave traces of information when they are online that reveal their interests and desires of which others observe. While this can allow people to become interconnected and develop social connections online, it can also increase potential risk to harm, such as [[cyberbullying]] or censoring/stalking by strangers, reducing privacy.<ref name=":1" />

In addition, [[Simone Browne]] argues that surveillance wields an immense racializing quality such that it operates as "racializing surveillance." Browne uses racializing surveillance to refer to moments when enactments of surveillance are used to reify boundaries, borders, and bodies along racial lines and where the outcome is discriminatory treatment of those who are negatively racialized by such surveillance. Browne argues racializing surveillance pertains to policing what is "in or out of place."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nishiyama |first1=Hidefumi|title=Surveillance as Race Struggle: On Browne's Dark Matters |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/646864/summary |journal=Theory & Event |volume=20 | issue=1 |date=2017 |pages=280–285 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |via=Project MUSE}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Browne |first1=Simone |author-link=Simone Browne |title=Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness |date=October 2, 2015 |publisher=Duke University Press Books |isbn=978-0822359197 |pages=224}}</ref>

====Privacy====
Numerous [[civil rights]] groups and [[privacy]] groups oppose surveillance as a violation of people's right to privacy. Such groups include: [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]], [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and [[Privacy International]].

There have been several lawsuits such as ''[[Hepting v. AT&T]]'' and ''[[EPIC v. Department of Justice]]'' by groups or individuals, opposing certain surveillance activities.

Legislative proceedings such as those that took place during the [[Church Committee]], which investigated domestic intelligence programs such as [[COINTELPRO]], have also weighed the pros and cons of surveillance.

==== Court cases ====

[[People v. Diaz|''People vs. Diaz'' (2011)]] was a court case in the realm of cell phone privacy, even though the decision was later overturned. In this case, Gregory Diaz was arrested during a sting operation for attempting to sell ecstasy.  During his arrest, police searched Diaz's phone and found more incriminating evidence including SMS text messages and photographs depicting illicit activities.  During his trial, Diaz attempted to have the information from his cell phone removed from evidence, but the courts deemed it as lawful and Diaz's appeal was denied on the California State Court level and, later, the Supreme Court level.  Just three short years after, this decision was overturned in the case ''Riley vs. California'' (2014).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1033744.html|title=People vs. Diaz|last=Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.|date=July 30, 2008|website=FindLaw|access-date=Feb 1, 2017}}</ref>

[[Riley v. California|''Riley vs. California'' (2014)]] was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case in which a man was arrested for his involvement in a drive-by shooting.  A few days after the shooting the police made an arrest of the suspect (Riley), and, during the arrest, the police searched him.  However, this search was not only of Riley's person, but also the police opened and searched his cell phone, finding pictures of other weapons, drugs, and of Riley showing gang signs.  In court, the question arose whether searching the phone was lawful or if the search was protected by the 4th amendment of the constitution.  The decision held that the search of Riley's cell phone during the arrest was illegal, and that it was protected by the 4th Amendment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132|title=Riley v. California|last=California Fourth District Court of Appeal|date=Jun 25, 2014|website=Oyez – IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law|access-date=February 1, 2013}}</ref>