Talk:Mass surveillance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Dan Brown's Digital Fortress praises mass surveillance?! I feel pretty sure that whoever added that either didn't actually read the book, or some how grossly misunderstood the very obvious anti-mass surveillance message! The "happy ending" is when the NSA's supercomputer used for unwarranted surveillance overheats and explodes killing the pro-surveillance antagonist. Digital Fortress should be in the section listing literature and movies critical of mass surveillance. This needs a major rethink! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.138.182 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could find at least something on the pro-side in the Prelinger archives to balance the ciritique. --Vinsci 20:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article states "Amongst the western democracies, the United Kingdom is perhaps the country subject to the most surveillance." Which sounds really biased considering that UK is one of the few countries in EU/Europe without ID cards. Perhaps the author is from the UK but doesn't know about other western democracies bar the USA?

I think the sentence itself is POV, and should be removed. Still, the UK does have a lot of cameras. It sounds like London is literally covered in them. When I think surveillance, I think cameras, not ID cards. And they are trying to implement the ID cards anyway. Rhobite 16:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The whole article is quite POV, and frankly doesn't do the privacy lobby any favours, by not mentioning any of the many specific examples of abuse that have been detected. Trying to work on Closed-circuit television to fix similar issues there. Morwen - Talk 14:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under "movies critical of mass surveilance" you could include Enemy of the State. (Starring Will Smith) That movie always comes to mind about how information could be abused. One of the scenes that is quite invasive of privacy is the one where they switch his watch, put a bug in his shoe, replace his pen with an identical pen but with spy technology inside it. And all of it without his knowledge. They use satellites to track him, cameras to spy from a distance, and pretty much do whatever they can to destroy the evidence to coverup a murder. Pretty scary stuff, but when you look at today's environment and compare it with this movie (made before 911) it is shockingly accurate in how today's people feel about big brother and the potential for the digital age to be open to so much abuse from high.

You don't have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to feel you are being watched anymore. People's gradual acceptance of the loss of thier privacy means thier attitudes have changed to be accepting of the surveilance. But when this movie was made, the characters are cynical and reflect what most people were thinking about and thier concern at this loss of freedom. here is the imdb link to the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/

I think given the themes it is worth considering for inclusion into that section of the article. Within the boards some have pointed out to strange "coincidences" in the movie and 911: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/board/threads/

another link highlighting some eerie coincidences before 911: http://www.letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=9537&start=0

I think you could include Gattaca as a movie against, in relation to DNA databasing.18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Some news: "USA Today reported Thursday [May 11, 2006] that the three largest U.S. telephone companies--AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth--have handed over millions of wireline phone records to the National Security Agency without a court order."[1] Shawnc 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People's gradual acceptance of the loss of thier (sic) privacy means thier (sic) attitudes have changed to be accepting of the surveilance (sic)" Or maybe people are (a) sensible enough to realise that monitoring of PUBLIC space does not infringe their PRIVACY, (b) not so narcissistic as to think the security services and the police don't have better things to do than monitor every waking moment of some ignorant hippy's sad, pointless life, and (c) are aware that the threats of anti-social behaviour and terrorism which CCTV can help challenge are infinitely more dangerous than the somewhat remote possibility that the UK or the USA will transform overnight into a dictatorship, all of which mean that (d) while "You don't have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to feel you are being watched anymore" (you might just be delusional, ignorant, and self-obsessed) it certainly helps! Following on from these observations, I am going to take apart and rebuild this article, until it actually bears some resemblance to an encyclopaedic entry from planet Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.138.47 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, Adolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.79.110 (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How long did it take you to think of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.76 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

The "United States" section seems to be sorely lacking facts and/or sources and seems mostly filled with conspiracy-theory-sounding rumors ("The National Security Agency has been alleged as a major figure in this type of activity because of ECHELON, although this was never solidly proven to be surveillance directed against American citizens."). This is an interesting subject, but this is an encyclopedia and it should sound like a reliable source and not be littered with this kind of nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange really "surveillance" as this article seems to be talking about it? Just having a huge database of facts doesn't necessarily equal surveillance. I'm going to make a stab and clearing some of the nonsense out of this section. —Cleared as filed. 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Just having a huge database of facts doesn't necessarily equal surveillance." You seem to be one of those who has sentiments like "just because the government proposed to do ______ and Congress requested and approved funding for ______ doesn't mean the government is actually doing ______"

Should the gov't keep a secret file on all of us that we don't know the contents of or what they'll use it for, simply because they can? Does that bother you?Batvette (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a citation for British telephone boxes including recording equipment? It sounds unlikely to me, surely someone would have to collect all the tapes regularly? Jameskeates 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about ECHELON being used for economic espionage has been [citation needed] for about six months. Time to delete it? - 69.219.1.50 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

"Amongst the western democracies, the United Kingdom is perhaps the country subject to the most surveillance."

Why does wikipedia keep referring to Britain as a democracy?

The House of Lords is the Government of Britain, excepting the very limited and constrained powers the House of Commons has through the obsolete Salisbury convention and the token use of the Parliament Act. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the House of Lords do not even respect the Salisbury convention and the Parliament Act's use is limited, it can only be used once in the period of a government i.e. about once every four years!

The House of Lords makes law in Britain through the amending of legislation passed from the House of Commons. The House of Commons is nothing more, in practicality, than a glorified advising chamber to the unelected House of Lords. The House of Lords is the government of Britain and it is not democratically elected. Therefore, Britain cannot be objectively described as a democracy!

Wrong, the House of Lords is a watchdog mainly for civil liberties, it can block legislation but this has only been use 6 times in the last 30 odd years (last time was 3 month detentions.) Any amendments made (not many are) means the Bill goes back into the commons to be re-reviewed. Britain is a democracy, albeit with noticeable flaws (first past the post..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.213.205 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UK operates as a democracy as the House of Lords very rarely opposes the House of Commons and so legislation is (de facto) decided by the House of Commons. Similarly, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister, who can legally be any member of parliament who can obtain/retain a majority in the House of Commons. In practice the monarch always invites the leader of the majority party. Essentially the checks and balance son the unelected authorities are by way of tradition more than law. But surely this is more of a democracy: chosing to respect parliament despite not being directed to by law rather than many countries where the head of state ignores parliament despite not being directed to ignore it by law! Babakathy (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what has this got to do with thise arycile anyway? Babakathy (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let 'em go at it, wiki can't be that starved for server space and we across the pond need the edumacation as well as reminder that we aren't the only imperfect nation. Batvette (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist countries[edit]

China, Russia and Cuba may be running mass surveilance schemes. Anybody has evidence? Human rights, political rights etc are strongly suppressed--HiddenIP (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China in particular is a glaring omission. (I know less about Russia, though I am pretty sure it no longer describes itself as communist.) In general, this article needs a lot of cleanup. Indeed, I wonder if it's really possible to do sections on different types of surveillance in all the different countries. Maybe it would make more sense to split off some of the currently bigger sections (US & UK) and use this article to focus on different surveillance technologies? groupuscule (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I noticed that the mass surveillance and electronic police state articles refer to each other.

Except in the list of "key factors," the latter de-emphasizes (see Electronic_Police_State#Definition) collection by commercial entities of data which is then turned over to the state, for example when requested in a National Security Letter.

I suspect that the term "electronic police state" has little currency: of the two publications using it which are listed in Electronic_Police_State#History, one was explicitly underground, and the other ceased publication after three issues, citing a lack of interest (https://secure.cryptohippie.com/pubs/EPS-2011.pdf). Most results from a search engine were about the Cryptohippie reports. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I also suspect something similar - especially this specific definition proposed in the article which must have limited support in sources. Widefox; talk 07:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you take out all of the unsourced WP:OR in electronic police state you're left with nothing that isn't already included here. I think that article should be deleted. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion at this point is that we add a short "Electronic police state" section to this article, use it to preserve anything from the Electronic police state article that isn't WP:OR and that is reasonably sourced (I said it would be a short section), and make Electronic police state into a #REDIRECT that redirects here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I went ahead and did the merge. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of databases[edit]

I have replaced a link to National databases of United States persons becase it is clearly relevant to the topic of the section in which it appears. The criticism that it is "unsourced, nonsensical, and weasely" is false because, fairly obviously, databases contribute to the realization of mass surveillance, and the linked article is sourced, and there is nothing weasely about pointing out the connection. ENeville (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't re-revert; that's edit warring. WP:BRD justifies a single reversion; WP:ROWN doesn't justify re-reversion -- in fact, WP:ROWN specifically says that if you adhere to it you don't re-revert. Anyway, here's what's wrong with the sentence you added (and re-added), as I see it:
  • nonsensical: I don't even know what the sentence means. If I don't understand it then the average reader probably won't understand it. Please explain what you're trying to say and perhaps we can make it clearer.
  • weasely: The use of the word "various" really is weasely (see WP:WEASEL) as it refers vaguely to unspecified databases. The implication is that it applies to all of the databases listed on the linked page. Wikipedia shouldn't contain implications; if you mean something, say it.
  • unsourced: The suggestion that the (unspecified) databases facilitate anything requires reliable sourcing, particularly if you're suggesting that the databases listed on the linked page are being used for surveillance (a highly controversial claim).
And I'll throw in another problem for good measure: the page linked to (National databases of United States persons) shouldn't exist because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But I'll leave that for a discussion on that article's talk page (and, if necessary, the WP:AFD process). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I didn't re-revert: I modified the wording. If you feel that the wording merits further improvement, obviously you would be encouraged to pursue that. Overall, I find your critique so untenable under scrutiny that I think most editors will see the same and for the benefit of perspective I'll allow a third party to address it, if one finds it necessary. ENeville (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you point it out I see that you re-worded my sentence so it probably wasn't a re-revert. Sorry. In any case, how about if you humor me and actually address my arguments? If my critique is so untenable then it should be easy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a battleground
"See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." ENeville (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: are you going to respond to my substantive arguments? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: This discussion is barely ripe for WP:3O input, but I'll give it a try. The overall problem with the article is its' overall structure. "Mass surveillance" is a buzzword, used because we see lots of security cameras about. The cameras are private (like in Las Vegas casinos) and public (like the camera that caught the tragic high-speed train wreck in Spain the other day). Thus we have a normal concern about "Big Brother". So lets look at the article. First, consider the lede sentence: "MS is ... pervasive surveillance of an entire population..." This circular definition says "MS is surveillance that is massive". (But does such surveillance actually exist? Am I being "surveyed" as I write this post? If not, then I am an exception to the "entire population" descriptive. Keep in mind that for every person subject to surveillance, there must be someone doing the watching.) Next, the lede paragraphs, including the criticisms, do not have citations. Thus it is little wonder that a dispute might arise about the vague national database list article. We can't figure out if surveillance means cameras, Google search logging, Wikipedia toolserver edit counts, or even accessiblity to electronic based YellowPages. An overall revision of the article is needed before quibbles about the relevance of the database article are helpful. Also, I mentioned at the start that this discussion was barely ripe. 3O postings should be made after a thorough discussion (of the issue) has taken place and the discussion is at a standstill. Much of the above is simply about BRD and 3R/1R. My 3O recommendation is to drop the issue (and not link the database article) so that you can move on to more basic stuff like proper definition of the article subject based on WP:RS. (PS: thanks for the opportunity to spout off!) – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 3O. Can you please clarify, do you mean the sentence should be removed for now, or just the link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the link is an WP:EGG. (I didn't think about that in my rumination.) Leave out the sentence. Put the link in the "See also" section. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with the notability of the linked page, but that's a separate discussion. As long as that page exists I'm okay with the "See also" idea. ENeville, your thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This 3O opinion seems (admittedly?) to range widely from the issue at hand. While the points raised about the introduction may be valid, Wikipedia is a work in progress and a link to an article on databases of a national population seems suited here within any reasonable range of potential nuances adopted in the introduction in the future. At the least, the link seems suited currently and it would seem best to keep such information included unless and until the intro is reworked in a manner that clearly excludes the relevance. Unless, maybe, someone can point to another WP article where such a link is more suited. If I were reading about mass surveillance in the United States – even considering the absence of established refinement of the meaning of "mass surveillance" – either because I was looking for that topic specifically or because I was reading about mass surveillance generally and got to that section, I'd want to know if there's related information on WP. I'd call that basic wfy. I appreciate that there is a concern about WP:EGG, but I think the solution would be to change the link to unpiped or piped differently (and I may take a crack at that). Moving it to "See also" seems noticeably less desirable, as particularly in such a large article people are less likely to see it, and certainly much less so if reading just the section. It honestly feels a little creepy to need to justify inclusion in this case, given that the fundamental topic is about keeping track of being secretly watched. ENeville (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you're feeling creeped out. I agree that Srich32977's scope argument isn't particularly relevant, since there's little doubt that the subject of the sentence has something to do with "mass surveillance" no matter how broadly you define that term. Besides, there are lots and lots of articles here about equally nebulous subjects; editors shouldn't have to nail down in the lead section what's in and what's out before working on the rest of the article.
I agree with Srich32977's WP:EGG argument and I appreciate ENeville's removal of the link on that basis.
My concerns still remain with the sentence itself, however, and ENeville has still refused to address them. This might be considered WP:TE or WP:IDHT; regardless it's not very nice and simply perpetuates the dispute. Let's look just at sourcing for now. ENeville, please explain why a reliable source isn't necessary for the statement that various (now unspecified) databases "facilitate" surveillance? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I considered advising you of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, based on your past behavior. You previously accused me of harassing you relating to this issue, and now you criticize me for not engaging. There seems no way to satisfy your expectations. Nonetheless, I have supplied two citations. ENeville (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those sources don't support the statement. The statement suggests that all national databases facilitate surveillance, but the sources are only about two sets of databases (XKeyscore and the FBI criminal databases). Moreover the source about FBI criminal databases doesn't say anything about mass surveillance. Employers' screenings of job applicants can hardly be called mass surveillance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal 2 (Surveillance state)[edit]

There is a second merge proposal that calls for merging Surveillance state into this article. I didn't initiate the proposal, but want to create a place where it can be discussed. This is that place. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this merge proposal has been pending since June 2012, my suggestion is that we resolve this by adding a short "Surveillance state" section to this article, use it to preserve anything from the Surveillance state article that isn't WP:OR and that is reasonably sourced, and make Surveillance state into a #REDIRECT that redirects here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I went ahead and did the merge. Surveillance state now #REDIRECTs here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone fingerprint scanner - privacy/security issues[edit]

Impact of iPhone 5S fingerprint reader and the US-VISIT fingerprint gathering program and the possible resultant privacy/security issues.

Does the NSA (and GCHQ) already have the ‘key’ to your iPhone?

If you have visited the USA in about the last 10 years, on clearing immigration you will have to have given the US a (digital) copy of your fingerprints.

So, if your fingerprints are to be the new ‘key’ to the iPhone (and other future gadgets to follow), who exactly has a copy of that ‘key’?

If the NSA already has the ‘key’ to your iPhone, it is not a great leap to imagine that software could be made so that that ‘key’ could be used remotely to access your data.

It has already been shown that these Governmental agencies have an unquenchable thirst to spy on their own citizens (let alone people outside of their country).

Likewise, if you obtained a UK biometric passport (or an UK ID card) then GCHQ will have a digital copy of your fingerprints. Also, in the UK, if you were arrested (but were never convicted of an offense), then the police have the right to take and keep your fingerprints.

If finger print technology becomes the gold standard means of authenticating your identity (e.g. to access email, banking as well as phone data), then your fingerprints could become the ultimate ‘skeleton key’ for all your data.

Again, the question remains, who already has that data and who could get a hold of it?

Unlike passwords, a fingerprint cannot be ‘reset’

What happens if your fingerprint data becomes compromised?

In traditional security systems, when a password has been cracked, it is a small matter to reset your password (or passwords). However, you can never ‘reset’ a fingerprint. If compromised, your finger prints will remain a permanent open backdoor to your personal security.

It seems that some people are happy for the UK Government (and successive Governments) to have such data, and to be spied on by them. However, what happens if someone else gets a copy of your fingerprints?

High-tech criminal fraud is already big business worldwide and criminal gangs are particularly adept at hacking, and so might actively seek to get your finger print data. With the advent of iPhone5S and iTunes allowing purchases using fingerprint data (and further business models no doubt set to follow) criminal gangs will be incentivized like never before to get your fingerprint data.

In the future, there may be more value in stealing your phone for its fingerprint data than stealing the phone itself. As for the phone re-sale market, you will have to be pretty sure that your fingerprint data is gone, or you may lose considerably more than you made selling your phone.

If your fingerprint data became compromised, perhaps you could try to block the use of your fingerprints as a means of authentication, but you would need to notify every person, business, and governmental organ that your fingerprints have been compromised. Good luck with that!

In the future, if fingerprints become the standard means of authenticating your identity, then you should take great care who you give that data to now, if stolen your life could become very difficult in the future.

iSpy an iPhone?


Also: Senator Al Franken, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, has written to Apple boss Tim Cook explaining his security concerns: [2]

122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literature and movies[edit]

I have no objection to a prose section, properly sourced, but this list is ridiculous. For example, it is claimed that the 2006 film Déjà Vu praises mass surveillance. I think that's going way too far. The film does not praise anything. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:

I'm always suspicious when social problems fail to appear on Canadian soil in Wikipedia entries. It makes me think that perhaps a group of people are doing their very best to make Canada appear like a paradise.

I would accordingly suggest someone to start a section on Canada and surveillance. If you live here, it's pretty easily observable that mass surveillance is an issue, especially on the Internet.

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes"[edit]

I'd agree mass surveillance is an indicative trait, but is it a "distinguishing" trait if western democracies also practice it (USA, Australia, UK, etc)? The only way to unpack this contradiction is to say that those democracies are totalitarian, which has a degree of truth to some perhaps but it can't be justified as fact. 203.5.6.57 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legality & oversight (& philosophy) -- additions or cross references requested[edit]

In this article there is remarkably little overview of the legality of mass surveillance. I can not find any link to an article that gives a broad overview of it. Does something like that exist in Wikipedia?

The country by country list has a lot of good but miscellaneous information in it, but it doesn't make for a very readable article about the fundamental issues and philosophy that could guide decision making. If any of the country-specific content is really exemplary of applied philosophy, then it should probably be pulled out to a featured section above the big list of countries.

In a higher level summary, what are the various traditions and the legal philosophy (and analysis of 'true' strategic necessity) that guides decisions about what parts of a government may do (especially in a Liberal democracy) either in complete secrecy, or under various tiers of oversight, with what degree of independent auditing and what degree of public reporting on what timescales, etc. etc.

Surely this is an issue in philosophy of government. In a democracy, surely the supposedly responsible citizen rulers should be expected to understand where they should maintain oversight on the bureaucrats doing things in their name, and what things have undeniable rock-solid necessity for being 'covert'.

What are the most influential books etc. discussing this at a national security vs. philosophy of government level (non-partisan, and not just reacting to contemporary issues).

Where is there a summary of, for example, the oversight structure of all US covert activities (such as the intelligence commitees in congress)? How does it connect to the Constitution and what are the influential legal cases and law changes? How (in general categories, not long lists) do other responsible countries structure their oversight and public disclosure of mass surveillance?

Right now the article is a bit too much of a gigantic list of random facts, and it lacks a structured overview of subtopics (or more structured cross-references to other articles). DKEdwards (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article[edit]

Hey, User:Discospinster, I noticed you just reverted an edit of mine. Can you be more specific? Can you explain exactly how the citations support the text? Because I read the articles and I don't see it supported there. Jason catlin (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Jason Catlin[reply]

The Wikipedia article says: "Since the September 11 attacks, a vast domestic (and to some extent, global) intelligence apparatus has is being built to collect information using the NSA, FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The intelligence apparatus collects, analyzes and stores information about millions of (if not all) American (and sometimes foreign) citizens, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing."
It is cited to a Washington Post article, which says "Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation's history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing."
That's how the citation supports the text. ... discospinster talk 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The specific claim in the text you'd like to add says that it tracks millions if not all Americans. I don't see anything in the article that supports that. Jason catlin (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Jason Catlin[reply]

Then you can take just take that bit out, instead of removing the entire paragraph. ... discospinster talk 03:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when you take that claim out, there's almost nothing really in the paragraph that's encyclopedic at all. The claim is just that the NSA engages in surveillance? Well, yes, I'm sure they do. How about this: If nothing else, there's no reason to put that paragraph in an article specifically titled "mass surveillance." It seems to me that if you're going to put something in a mass surveillance article, there has to be something "mass" about it. So far, all you've really done is provide evidence that the NSA engages in surveillance. Jason catlin (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that the word "vast" would indicate that. ... discospinster talk 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article gives the following definition: "Mass surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens."
It is true that the article describes it as "vast," I agree, but it seems to me that that's a very sort of subjective word. What is it, exactly, about the surveillance that they consider to be vast? Shouldn't we cite that exactly as the reason we consider it to be mass surveillance?
According to the cited Washington Post article, "thousands" of citizens are subject to surveillance. Many other articles have been written since then, describing the warrant process used to target citizens, what the controls are, and how care is taken to avoid excess harm to privacy. I really have to say that it seems to me that this does not meet the definition of mass surveillance which is proposed by this very article. Jason catlin (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put EMPACT ?[edit]

EMPACT according to its own words as quoted from here: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/empact
The EU policy cycle EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal ThreatsEuropean Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threat) is a security initiative driven by EU Member States to identify, prioritise and address threats posed by organised and serious international crime. EMPACT brings together a broad range of multidisciplinary professionals from Member States and third countries to take concrete actions against criminal networks. Participants include law enforcement authorities, the judiciary, EU agencies, customs and tax offices and private partners. With EMPACT, every year over 200 operational actions are carried out in targeted key crime areas.
EMPACT is a big player in the game of mass surveillance, but there is no en.wikipedia article "European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threat". Where would I put the addition to this article in? I presume best would be to add a multi-states topic / area since it makes more sense than adding it under every and each country that participates in EMPACT.
For now I add just one source that mentions EMPACT in an article about mass surveillance - by netzpolitik.org (in German) - https://netzpolitik.org/2021/migration-nach-grossbritannien-eu-polizeien-wollen-versteckte-kameras-an-straenden-installieren/ There are more sources on EMPACT and mass surveillance, but first I need to know where and how to include it on this entry. Rava77 (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_surveillance&oldid=1208351927"