Talk:Surveillance/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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

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).

Done and done -- I almost almost completely rewrote this thing, removed all the POV language, and sourced everything that I put in -- it's actually an article about surveillance now. Yes that's right -- actual surveillance -- like the type that actually happens nowadays, instead of the imaginative speculations of some drunk UFO enthusiast that lives in his moms basement! And for people that do want to give opinions (from reliable sources of course) -- there is a section "Controversies surrounding surveillance" that is for opinions and whatnot. That way, we can have the article be neither a Reptilian conspiracy-fest nor a page for a Islamofascist-terrorists-hate-my-freedom conspiracy fest. We can just have a nice article about surveillance technology, techniques, and laws, and let people draw their conclusions from the facts. Then they can read the supporting and opposing arguments in the "controversy" section if they feel like it... Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I felt that the 'totalitarian' section lacked depth with regards to surveillance and the issue of consent. I added one of the key arguments that I've come across through my readings - namely that individuals have little to no choice but to be surveyed in public spaces. I also thought that an important distinction needed to be made between different biometric devices and their relation to consent. (I.e. facial recognition is automatic and individuals are often not aware of being under surveillance, as opposed to less nuanced techniques such as fingerprinting). Citations were included.

Elzaibak (talk) (UTC)

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)

That's because the vast majority of surveillance today is done using electronic means. I think the amount of coverage given to informants and infiltrators is adequate for the purposes of this article.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that a brief "Surveillance throughout history" section (or something like that) might be beneficial to the overall quality of the page. As far as I am able to tell, there is no other page on Wikipedia that describes/explains the history of surveillance. Although I agree completely that surveillance today is conducted primarily through electronic and digital means, it suggest that surveillance is a product of our modern society, something it is definitely not. I am currently working on a possible addition to the page regarding the history of surveillance but would love more feedback or conversation regarding such additions! Thanks! Amfun (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't fully read the discussion page and noticed that during a major overhaul the more historical aspects of the page were removed for good reason, I have started working on the "History of Surveillance" page itself. Amfun (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

You covered this topic very well, but I've moved this to it's own article -- it only loosely related to surveillance, despite it's name. It is more closely related to physical security and security engineering Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

It has been, and I've significantly cut down the amount covered in surveillance.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Super secure

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

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

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

The type of surveillance that this article covers is, by far, the most common meaning for the term "surveillance". The other forms would be more appropriate to have in a disambiguation page.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

I have decided to add 7 new sources (books in this case) to the Further readings section primarily for university students who are interested in doing further research (i.e. essay writing, assignments etc.). Overall, the page is a great primer and introduction to the topic but more scholarly research requires academic material. Lastly, I will edit the formatting of this section for purposes of citation consistency in the near future. MrSidneyReilly (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

After the recent edit from 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)

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)

Counter surveillance, inverse surveillance, sousveillance

The text of this section is taken word-for-word from the following website: http://sigillu.com/glossaryeng.html Salvar (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or vice-versa ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

Any criticism of surveillance is not mentioned and perhaps should be (see mean world syndrome and big brother discussion pages). For instance this has massive implications for everyone and we should all be concerned. Foucault wrote about a prison where we end up monitoring ourselves and become controllable and controlled by this. Can we be guilty of being human? Surely surveillance implies we are guilty until proved innocent and not the other way round? What about displacement of crime etc? No sinister implications have been mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created such a section, and it includes views of people that support surveillance as well -- so that BOTH views can stay out of the article, which can hopefully remain objective.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul of page

OK -- I've done a ton of work here -- I've pretty much completely rewritten this page from scratch. Compare it to sorry state it was in before ...

For starters:

I've removed all the unsourced, conspiracist junk, and replaced it with veriable information backed by reliable sources
I've explain how modern surveillance technologies actually work, as opposed to what people have heard about them on trash radio shows like Coast-to-coast AM
I've completely reorganized the page -- moved things around, added sections, and removed some as well.
I've added/changed the images

I have, as I mentioned above, created a section for supporting/opposing arguments. I think that they should stay there and only there. The rest should just be facts about how surveillance works and programs that have been implemented. I'd like to keep things objective and keep motivations for surveillance programs in this section -- because for every single program mentioned, the government is going to say that the program was designed to for fight "criminals and terrorists" and the critics are going to say that it's a way of "crushing political dissent and violating rights to privacy" ... so in order to keep from having to bring that up every time a program is mentioned, let's just mention it once -- in the section dedicated to it. The arguments are pretty much the same for each of the programs, and most of the big ones have specific arguments on their own wiki articles, and do not belong on this page, which should be geared towards a broad overview of modern surveillance technologies and practices.

I have focused mainly on China, the United States, and the the U.K. since they have by far the most developed and extensive surveillance infrastructure in the world, spend the most money on it, surveill the largest number of people, and possess the most advanced technology in the field. These nations are also the focus of this article, because I tried to focus on large scale surveillance programs (unless there is a valid reason to cover a smaller one, such as the mention of mexican LEOs having microchips implanted in the RFID section), due to the fact that they are more notable and have had more historic impact. It would be impossible to cover every instance of surveillance here, and would clutter the article way too much. These nations simply have the largest surveillance infrastructure in place, and are currently designing and implementing the "surveillance systems of the future", so I feel that they describe the field most accurately. If there is a choice between mentioning the internet surveillance systems in Taiwan vs. those in the U.S., I have chosen the U.S., simply because they have billions of dollars more that they dedicate to it, and have much more advanced technology, and more personell. And there are more english language reliable sources that cover U.S. policy anyway.

I've sourced just about everything in here at this point. So that this page doesn't turn into a junk page again -- please make sure that when adding something, that it comes from a reliable source ... I don't want to have to go through again and remove all the stupid crap about people with ipods all being secret agents, who are using the ipods as secret listening devices. The reality of the situation is way more interesting anyway.

I have focused on modern surveillance technologies and practices, as opposed to historical technologies. That would take way too much space for an already long article on an enormous subject. Perhaps someone should create a History of surveillance page ... I'm not personally feeling up to it.

I shortened the enormous(ly inaccurate) "How to avoid surveillance" section -- most of the information was wrong, and there are other articles dedicated to it anyway. The fact is, that with modern surveillance technologies -- gait analysis, facial recognition, internet surveillance, geolocation, etc -- if they are implemented, it is almost impossible to avoid monitoring by them. And this isn't a how-to site anyway.

What needs a lot more work are the pages dedicated to each of the individual topics here (Computer surveillance, Corporate surveillance, etc) as well as to the individual programs (ADVISE, TALON, etc) ... many of them are in as poor condition as this article was. ---Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

-- It looks like a conspiracy theorist entry. Why doesn't this follow other Wikipedia entries that begin with a broad definition of what surveillance is and what it is used for. Then it should begin with the history of surveillance. Instead, it goes right into computer surveillance, RFID, satellites, wiretaps, etc. The article should start with precursors to modern surveillance methods, which are basically just staying hidden, eavesdropping and watching people.

Chinese execution image

Editor Jrtayloriv appears to think that the image of an execution (File:Chinese execution of political dissidents.jpg) in China is relevant to the "Totalitarianism" section of an article about surveillance. Since it's nothing to do with surveillance in China, I don't see the relevance. Opinions? Hohum (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious connection between this image and the concept of surveillance. It adds no useful information to a reading trying to understand what surveillance is. Keep it out. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A long way off topic. Remove. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems that everyone wants it gone ... I'll remove it now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re RFID tagging: Is SUCH an application imaginable?

Interesting overall article. I found much confirmed of what I have had suspected for years, simply based on general knowledge, common sense, personal observations and the like.

I don't want to brag, but I was the one who years ago suggested to start the article about GPS/cellphone tracking. I was met with much scepticism then, and I see with some satisfaction today that this now has become generally accepted knowledge.

After the experience made with some of the more active parts of the Wikipedia community, I ceased to contribute officially. But this doesn't keep me from occasionally making myself heard through this channel.

Today I would ask the individuals responsible for the RFID chapter this question: Can fx credit card chips be abused as RFIDs, in order to monitor a person's movements? If so (as I would assume), how much less effective distance-wise are they, compared to purpose-made RFIDs?

Michael Laudahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.176 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Addenda:

Yes, it appears to be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm61-CmxU9k

http://www.idstronghold.com/ (no commercial hidden agenda in mind) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.171 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes RFID and other sensors are and will be used for ambient intelligence. Heck wikipedia has entries on this stuff already if you connect the technology dots. :) You may have heard of the "Internet of Things." Well there is nothing to stop this tech from being used as a domestic surveillance tool. Combined with OSINT a regular citizen can do a lot of "spying" imo. Imagine silobreaker.com hooked into all the arduino projects from kickstarter. And that wouldn't be 1%. Trapwire is the name of the next gen echelon except its for domestic use instead of "catching commies." Now I don't believe there is any voodoo agenda going on. And I think USA intelligence folks are not interested in harming citizens or setting up any camps. It's simply money. Also refer to CISPA?(i think thats the name of the congressional act passed last spring). RFID if used with the old zigbee spectrum(iirc) could now send a signal a kilometer. Djfayt (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC) ^[1]

"Support" section has more criticism than support

The "Support" section has one unsourced sentence mentioning protection from terrorism and crime, and then piles on more criticism than support. IHTFP (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right on the money here. For each point of "support" there is a very direct contradiction ("but critics of this say ..."). This section needs a major rewrite. Like you said it doesn't mention the primary benefits of surveillance (which are obviously the support for it). If I get a chance I'll remove the offending sentences ... but I would have to do some research into the support for surveillance before adding any new content. --Wunderpants (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Privacy =/= freedom (except for the concept of privacy as a "freedom")

"However, many civil rights and privacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU have expressed concern that by allowing continual increases in government surveillance of citizens that we will end up in a mass surveillance society, with extremely limited, or non-existent political and/or personal freedoms."

Either the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU have it wrong or this article has it wrong, but surveillance does not restrict freedom, laws restrict freedom. Legal surveillance (e.g. in public, as opposed to in privacy) is merely an enabler of law enforcement. One might criticise surveillance for reducing personal privacy, absolutely. One might go so far as to criticise surveillance for being an enabler of authority (whatever that means to you anarchists). But reducing privacy and enforcing authority have nothing to do with defining what activities are considered legal. Usage of surveillance certainly does not restrict freedom of pursuing legal activities (if anything it might corroborate it, as well as promote legal behaviour). Similarly, illegal activities performed in privacy are never "free" to begin with, or at least not in the legislative context. Ergo the presence of surveillance does not make for a less free society, it only makes for a less private, more authoritative society. I have a hard time picturing a scenario were a private citizen has his or her legal "freedom" striped through any type of surveillance abuse. A breach in privacy (surveillance abuse), as is defined by legislation, is in itself an illegal act and as such does not constitute legal surveillance. But such a concept and the concept of a "mass surveillance society" are mutually exclusive for "mass surveillance society" is defined in the legal context.--132.216.227.52 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of cameras in UK

I removed the following text:

In the U.K., for example, there are about 4.2 million surveillance cameras—1 camera for every 14 people.(ref name="uk-cameras-bbc")"Britain is 'surveillance society'". BBC News. November 2, 2006. Retrieved 2009-03-13.(/ref)

This figure of 4.2 million cameras is based on a methodologically dubious survey that extended results from a small area of high density population and high crime in central London and extrapolated to the entire country without accounting for demographic differences. See [1] for more detail. JulesH (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Countersurveillance section

I changed the section:

With recent developments — the Internet, increasing prevalence of electronic security systems, armed UAVs flying at 60,000 feet, and large corporate/government computer databases — counter surveillance has dramatically grown in scope and complexity.

(with the bits that seem weasel-ly in bold) to the following:

Developments in the late twentieth century have caused counter surveillance to dramatically grow in both scope and complexity, such as the Internet, increasing prevalence of electronic security systems, high-altitude ...

as well as editing to make the text flow a bit better (mainly moving the appositive list the Internet.. to the end and changing the time-specific recent developments to developments in the late. As for whether the whole sentence should be removed.. I don't know. I would say that common sense could be invoked to remind the reader that such a phrase as grown dramatically is obviously not a fact.. But then, what's the old saw about common sense not being all that common? Jimw338 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Surveillance versus espionage

I think the current article mixes these two concepts too much. From a legal point of view, espionage is very different from surveillance. But it's not just this article, the media does this as well. Perhaps this warrants a separate subsection? --Jrest (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrest (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature1528/
Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tragic shortcomings

This article is tragically short of ESM, ELINT and other EMCON related Signals Intelligence coverage... Sections on this historic and ongoing use of signals surveillance (See Huff-Duff impact on WW-II 1 & 2, both in battle of the Atlantic) is disappointing. Similarly, in US warships and submarines coverage (AN/WLR-1 etc.) and use of ESM systems in routine operations is virtually missing, so together, leaves me embarrassed for you! // FrankB 16:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1273&mon=200804
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dydan.rutgers.edu/research.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://govtsecurity.com/mag/automated_eye_sky/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.truthinjustice.org/corrupt-FBI.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311151910/http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1187188414685.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1187188414685.shtm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150808002021/http://armypubs.army.mil:80/epubs/pdf/r381_10.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r381_10.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017102602/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Information Awareness Office and its logo are past tense

It looks like Information Awareness Office and its logo are past tense, killed 13 years ago. It looks like the logo (shown on the page) was a public relations nightmare and contributed to it's demise. This article treats all of them as current. I'll probably fix but wanted to first mention it here. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the relation to reconaissance (in a military context)?

It would be good if this could be treated in the introduction, and a separate section if needed.150.227.15.253 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

🕵

🕵 links to this article but the meaning of the emoji is not explained at all. :-/ --RokerHRO (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 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) 08:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Telly

Also add television as an area of surveillance, monitoring channel choices either by cable box or at the cable company, going back to the seventies. And before IPoverPower/PowerOverIP was disclosed it was developed and used to monitor regular TVs.-Inowen (nlfte) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

^ wikipedia :)

[1] wikipedia :)

[1]

Talk:Surveillance/Archive 1

Other topics for this article (and possibly others)

Origin of the text of the article

Is the article paranoid, realistic, cautious or just unbalanced?

Totalitarian, centralised surviellance and "the transparent society"

Too much emphasis on technology

Natural Surveillance

Possible Article Split?

Super secure

Active editors: Have you thought of writing...

More emphasis on other elements of "Surveillance"

Wikipedia Isn't a 'How To' Guide

Useful external links

References

Pronunciation

Postal service

See also link

Counter surveillance, inverse surveillance, sousveillance

Criticism?

Major overhaul of page

Chinese execution image

Re RFID tagging: Is SUCH an application imaginable?

"Support" section has more criticism than support

Privacy =/= freedom (except for the concept of privacy as a "freedom")

Number of cameras in UK

Countersurveillance section

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Surveillance versus espionage

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

External links modified

Tragic shortcomings

External links modified

Information Awareness Office and its logo are past tense

What is the relation to reconaissance (in a military context)?

External links modified

🕵

External links modified

Telly