Volume 11 Issue
|
4
Surveillance
David Lyon Queen's University lyond@queensu.ca
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.4.1673
Published: 29 November 2022
Received: 30 September 2021 Accepted: 22 December 2021
Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist that
have influenced the text.
Licence: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 License (Germany) which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en
Copyright remains with the author(s).
Citation: Lyon, D. (2022). Surveillance. Internet Policy Review, 11(4). https://doi.org/
10.14763/2022.4.1673
Keywords: Surveillance, Observation, Social sorting, Dataveillance, Big data
Abstract: The concept of surveillance is vital for a digital era, especially considering that the term
surveillance is several centuries old. It has been modified over time to fit new circumstances. Today,
when surveillance has become part of the very infrastructure of contemporary societies, the task of
understanding and updating the concept of surveillance is more important than ever. Here, the
concept is defined, traced over time, elaborated upon and its current uses discussed. It is shown to
be a multi-disciplinary concept, one that requires multi-faceted understanding. Today, the
ubiquitous use of smart phones – a key surveillance-enabling device – and the data-analysing
capacities of large organisations, public and private, means that the concept has an ongoing life
and impact. It is an analytical concept but also a contested and critical one, required for
understanding and engaging with our times.
2
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
Introduction
The concept of surveillance is central to a contemporary understanding of the digital world. However, unlike some other concepts used in this context, the word surveillance is more than two hundred years old and thus has seen major social, political and technical changes that have prompted shifts in its meaning. From being a
concept that once spoke primarily of “close observation, especially of a suspected
spy or criminal” (OED, 2011), in the twenty-first century it acquired the sense of
encompassing a whole political-economic order as “surveillance capitalism”
(Zuboff, 2015; Zuboff 2019). Surveillance now speaks of an infrastructural condition. In between, the concept took on varied meanings, depending on its use in differing contexts of administrative, military, policing, epidemiological, workplace and
other areas. In each, the word was both a technical term for specific activities and,
from the 1970s, a concept increasingly imbued with meaning first from computing
and then from the expanding digital realm. The concept of surveillance relates to
practices of “watching over,” that have developed especially in modern, Western
times, aided increasingly by mechanical and digital technologies. Surveillance here
refers primarily to the human world but is frequently imbricated with the non-human and with technology. The concept of surveillance is distinguished by its associations with power and resistance, and by the varying kinds of meaning-making
that accompany its spread. It is a much contested critical concept in that its meaning is not settled in common use, and it is often debated in the context of political
disputes.
In what follows, we offer a definition of surveillance relating to a range of social
practices and note how it is distinct from other concepts, such as monitoring or
spying. We then show how the concept has evolved through four stages: observation, sorting, digitisation and dataveillance. This prompts a discussion of the multidisciplinarity of the concept and finally to a brief survey of its analytical and practical value, as well as the possible futures of the concept of surveillance.
The surveillance concept in context
Definition and development
The concept of surveillance as a social practice may be defined as “the focused,
systematic and routine attention to personal details for the purposes of influence,
management, protection or direction” (Lyon, 2007, p. 14). The concept points to
both practices and purposes. Many qualifications are needed to fill out this definition, and part of the aim of this article is to attend to such nuances of concept-ex-
3
Lyon
pansion. For example, this definition refers to “attention to personal details”, thus
allowing a stretch from “watching” to listening and other kinds of “attention”, including those enabled by electronic means. See below, where this is developed
further.
The mention of “electronic means” also hints that the simple “watching over” of,
say, a worker by her employer, is today much more subtle. Surveillance now “makes
visible” (Taylor, 2017, p. 4) through many means, especially by data collection,
analysis, interpretation and action. Moreover, the “making visible” achieved by surveillance might occur without any deliberate operator attention to, or awareness
on the part of, particular people. Personal profiles may be constructed from disparate data, gleaned from consumer behaviour and from a myriad of other apparently random sources. But surveillance may also occur in other more arcane ways,
attending to human population groups, as well as to non-human creatures such as
birds or viruses (Haggerty & Trottier, 2013).
Surveillance, then, is a modern concept, used in English since the nineteenth century as a loan-word from the French; sur- ‘over’ and veiller ‘watch’, which both come
from the Latin, vigilare, to keep watch. Spanish reflects this in la vigilancia, and
Überwachung gives the same sense in German. Surveillance may be viewed as appropriate vigilance, to protect society from risks of attack, disease, crime or corruption. Indeed, it may be considered as protective of freedom and liberty, as much as
it is about care as control (Rule, 1974; Lyon, 1994; Taylor, 2020).
The use of the concept of surveillance, including its adverse aspects since the
nineteenth century, is no accident. This was a period when industrial capitalism
came into its own, involving new modes of organisation and governance, both
within emerging national and colonial governments and in new forms of economic
life, like in production and consumption (e.g. Dandeker, 1994). From the first such
usage, while direct perception was never abandoned, the technologies of surveillance were also important, entailing as they do, ways of enhancing first vision,
then hearing and eventually, memory (Lauer, 2011). For example, improved lighting on the streets of Paris, to enhance visibility, was a policing priority in 1668
(Tucker, 2017). In the 1890s, San Francisco newspapers complained about telephone operators listening-in on conversations (Lauer, 2011, p. 577), a practice soon
followed by others rather than just operators. And while Thomas Edison promoted
the surveillance use of his phonograph as a way of enhancing memory, in the
1880s, Edward Higgs notes that in Europe the state collection and thus “memory”
of citizen data – not only for “control” – can be traced to the 1500s (Higgs, 2004).
4
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
However, from the mid-twentieth century on, surveillance itself was increasingly
construed as a threat to freedom and liberty, not only when it was used to buttress
Nazism and authoritarian communism but also – especially in the writings of
George Orwell (1949) – in Western democracies. This negative connotation of the
concept, including the control of the watched by watchers, is the source of much
social criticism. However, some argue, the latter is not a necessary connotation
(e.g. Andrejevic & Selwyn, 2022; Lyon, 2007). Nonetheless, the ongoing excessive,
unauthorised and often concealed uses of surveillance in government, the workplace and the marketplace, seen especially from the late twentieth century onwards (see e.g. Marx, 1985; Gandy Jr., 1989; Mitchell, 1991; Zureik, 2003), continue
to make the concept of surveillance politically contentious.
The above definition of surveillance may be used to understand the historical development of the term, its conventional and more controversial uses as a concept
and its ongoing critical capacities. Historically, “surveillance” practices may be said
to antedate the introduction of the concept of “surveillance”, meaning that the concept may be applied to, for example, military intelligence, workplace supervision
and public “policing” – also avant la lettre – occurring from ancient times.
Increasingly, from the nineteenth century, it is the technologies used for surveillance that help to define the inherent changes in the modes of surveillance, that in
turn require constant rethinking of the concept itself. Those technologies, themselves products of desires for improved communication, industrial production or
military prowess, became merged in the later twentieth century, in “information
technology,” and latterly, in the internet, social media and other platform companies. Most recently, algorithmic analysis of extremely large datasets, artificial intelligence and machine learning underlie many “smart” surveillance activities, from
fitness wearables to smart homes and cities (e.g. Sewell, 2021; Kitchin, 2014).
This is why the concept of surveillance is not only required for but central to the
digital context; the former has developed symbiotically with the latter. However,
like its context, the digital, the practices of surveillance are means to other ends,
rather than representing a human purpose in their own right. This may be demonstrated in each context where surveillance as social practices appear, which is why
the practices are frequently controversial and the concept itself is contested. Here,
the chosen window into the concept of surveillance is the burgeoning field of surveillance studies, which for the past two decades has provided a meeting place for
those concerned with exploring surveillance practices and clarifying the concept.
The political-economic context and its accompanying technological features have
5
Lyon
always been significant aspects of whatever surveillance is practised; to neglect
them is to misunderstand both the phenomenon and the concept. Today, the digital context, dependent on the internet and on complex algorithms, is central to
surveillance. Data, in other words, is the means whereby human beings, in their
many activities, are made visible, represented and treated (Taylor, 2017). But although the concept of surveillance is rightly related to an infrastructural feature of
contemporary societies, and is highly automated (Andrejevic, 2007) it also still
refers to a set of social practices (Finn, 2011; Marx, 2016).
Related concepts
Several concepts are close neighbours of surveillance. One, “spying”, is sometimes
conflated with surveillance, unsurprisingly, due to the role of surveillance in intelligence gathering. The confusion is seen in former FBI Director James Comey denying the charge that the FBI spied on the Trump electoral campaign by placing it
under electronic surveillance in 2019. “I have never thought of that as spying”, he
said (Kanno-Youngs & Schmidt, 2019). Unlike surveillance, one can argue that all
spying involves secrecy, implying enmity or competition. A second concept is “supervision”, which has similar roots as “surveillance” but connotes not only observing, but also directing the execution of some activity or work. As we shall see, in a
digital era surveillance is tending towards supervision in this sense, which means
that further conceptual clarification is needed.
A third close concept is “monitoring”, which also involves observation, often with
the connotation of regular checking and reporting over time. In a workplace, for instance, employees may be monitored to check that their work is appropriate and
satisfactory (Ball 2010), but the workplace itself may also be monitored, for example, for health and safety or security. As Ball (2021, p. 11) observes, “surveillance”
and “monitoring” may be used interchangeably in this context. However, the stress
for those who use “surveillance” is on power, politics, resistance and meaning-making, whereas others are primarily concerned with the effectiveness – however defined – of monitoring.
If spying, supervision and monitoring are close concepts to surveillance, then
tracking and profiling should perhaps be added to the list. However, tracking and
profiling, along with monitoring, are frequently used as concepts that specify what
aspects of surveillance are under review. This is the case, for instance, in a recent
book suggesting that “tracking capitalism” might be a better term than Zuboff’s
“surveillance capitalism” (Goldberg, 2021). Surveillance is in this sense an umbrella
concept.
6
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
The concept of privacy is also associated with surveillance; sometimes it is seen as
its antidote, if not its antonym (Stalder, 2002). Some engaged with regulating surveillance use “privacy” as a key concept but may also quibble about using the concept of “surveillance” in some contexts, such as marketing. Yet others argue that
marketing both erodes autonomy and privacy and empowers consumers (Darmody
& Zwick, 2020). Much debate hangs on how far privacy can cope with the social, as
well as on individual aspects of privacy (Nissenbaum, 2009). Today, however, the
digital environment frequently takes surveillance far beyond identifiable individuals and instead toward the workings of a data infrastructure (Austin & Lie, 2021).
The valuable concept of privacy thus becomes less germane to the full range of
surveillance practices, reducing what was seen as its former larger congruence
with the concept of surveillance. Following this, at the political level, pleas for privacy can only be a partial response to current surveillance practices.
The development of the ‘surveillance’ concept
The earliest meaning of the concept of surveillance, appropriate to its etymology,
was that of observation. The “watchman,” assigned to “keep watch” in the city, was
on duty in ancient times, until such watching was professionalised as a “policing”
task in eighteenth century Europe. By 1829, Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police in London, and interestingly, one of their roles was to be visible in “preventive patrolling”. If watch-keeping was done in a military context, against an enemy, however, concealment was much more likely, as it would also be practised in
urban or national security contexts as “secret policing”. And by the twentieth century such secret policing became more frequently associated with covert government observation of populations in Russia after the 1917 revolution, or in Germany under the Third Reich. In this same period surveillance technologies including record-keeping were also adopted to enhance observational techniques (see
Jeffreys-Jones, 2017; Lyon, 1994).
Equally, surveillance as observation also occurs in workplace settings, as it has, using different terms, for millennia. Employers’ desire to check on the appropriate
and timely fulfilment of work tasks is the purpose of surveillance. Here too, such
observation became much more formalised with the development of industrial
capitalism, especially with the expansion of factories, that typically entailed larger
groups of employees under one roof. Direct observation by “foremen” was gradually enhanced by technical means, prominently, to include information collected on
workers (Beniger, 1989). Towards the end of the nineteenth century, not only the
capitalist workplace, but also capitalism’s marketplaces, also practised surveil-
7
Lyon
lance, mainly by the collation of spending and preference information on consumers (Lauer, 2017; Igo, 2018) but also, now, through audio analysis (Turow,
2021). So, what began as the literal watching of bodies, in each sphere, has gradually morphed into the collection of data, thus permitting an “image” of the person
to be built by the surveillor.
The intervention of technology, then, enables a certain distancing, from observing
bodies in space, to deducing aspects of their behaviour, extrapolating future potentials or enacting regulation from the information gathered about them. This
process also enables a second sense of the concept of surveillance, the sorting of
populations into categories of background and behaviour, something that has become a key to conceptualising surveillance (Lyon, 2003). Surveillance practices
cluster people in social and spatial categories so that they can be represented and
treated as members of such groups. Foreign students in wealthy countries, for example, may be sorted and ranked by their “desirability” as immigrants during the
application process (Brunner, 2022).
The difference between observing and sorting may be elucidated by considering
Foucault’s (1975) famous description of the Panopticon prison, in which inmates
are normalised into conformity with institutional expectations through constant
“inspection” by a watcher who is invisible to them. The covert aspect reappears in
this version of the concept. Here, the success of surveillance hangs on the direct
observation of bodies. However, earlier in his chapter on “panopticism”, Foucault directed attention to seventeenth century plagues, in which surveillance was carried
out by the collection of information. Details of plague victims enabled control of
the situation through categorising them so that different groups were treated differently.
If the concept of surveillance has shifted from direct observation to include sorting, the increasing use of information technologies also facilitates a move away
from concern with actual bodies to binary digits, or “bits”. A third aspect of the concept is digitised surveillance. That is, the object of surveillance is less corporeal –
the “image” above – and more related to what is now called data. In the hands of
Gilles Deleuze (1992), such a situation reduces further the association of surveillance with observed bodies, to one that refers merely to “dividuals”; discrete bits
of data rather than complex individuals. Rather than just being normalised, subjects of surveillance are pulled into the “machine” of control, which is surveillance
as management. As Haggerty and Ericson (2000) note, the body is as it were reconstituted – as consumer, employee, patient and so on – to fit the surveillance “assemblage”, which in itself is increasingly geared to predictive, future events.
8
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
Building on digitised surveillance is a fourth understanding of the concept –
datafied surveillance or dataveillance (Clarke, 1988). This expansion of the concept
of surveillance allows for the exploration of contemporary surveillance which in
practice has become infrastructural for today’s global societies. As van Dijck (2014)
notes, dataveillance is “continuous” as well as ubiquitous; it is always on, everywhere. Moreover, whereas earlier concepts of surveillance assumed that observation and sorting and even digitisation began in distinct spheres, surveillance as
dataveillance adds up to what van Dijck calls a “whole ecosystem of connective
media”.
This is expressed above all in the phenomenon of surveillance capitalism, where
large companies monitor and profit from data produced by everyday activities online and in the physical world. Van Dijck’s “ecosystem of connective media” is dominated by search engines such as Google, and social media platforms such as Facebook that use dataveillance as the basis of business, hence “surveillance capitalism” – whether approached from political economy (Mosco, 2014; Foster & McChesney, 2014), computing (Clarke, 2019) or sociology and social psychology (Zuboff,
2019).
Note that the four senses of surveillance identified here are also nested – they refer to each other and each later one is dependent on the one that preceded it.
Some kind of observation is required for categorising and sorting; sorting is now
digitally assisted, becoming part of the current infrastructure of surveillance.
Surveillance: A multidisciplinary concept
Because it is an inherently multidisciplinary concept, surveillance also has varying
nuances of meaning within different disciplinary fields. Thus, for instance, its use
in public health discourse and epidemiology is different from that in consumer
marketing, and that in computing sciences from that of legal discourses in regulation and law. Even in the social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, political
science and cultural studies, the exact sense of the “surveillance” concept may
fluctuate. This calls for careful translation work as well as stimulating much-needed interdisciplinary debate.
The strictest use of the concept of surveillance, historically at least, is in the legal
domain, where in the US it refers to “the act of observing another in order to gather evidence” which may be covert or overt (Legal Information Institute, 2021). This
phrase situates surveillance in the realm of policing, although in this case “surveillance” is prefixed with “electronic”. In the European Union, the scope of surveil-
9
Lyon
lance is seen more broadly, assuming rather than adding the “electronic” dimension. The European Data Protection Supervisor (2021) notes that “technological
progress in the past few decades have [sic] made monitoring, tracking and profiling practices easier, cheaper and more accurate”. This reading of the concept includes, for instance, both the public sphere – such as security – and the private –
such as targeted advertising. As with the social science-based understanding of
the concept, then, the use of digital technologies inflects “surveillance” significantly.
As noted earlier, the concept of surveillance is an umbrella sheltering a range of
possible activities that often must be qualified for more precise use. Each of the
four senses of the concept of surveillance mentioned above – observation, sorting,
digitised surveillance and dataveillance – reflects a technologically-enabled distancing from contact with actual human bodies, using cameras, telephones, computers and other technologies. How this occurs, in different settings, also inflects
the use of the concept in various disciplines. But changes in technology also spell
a return to bodies, now understood as data-sources rather than as the objects of direct vision or audible signals, for instance through biometric technologies such as
facial recognition or iris scans. As argued earlier, the dialectic movement between
technology and surveillance now, at least partially, reunites the conceptual field.
This is especially true of the notion of surveillance capitalism that relates organisationally to platform companies in particular, and symbolically to the device of
the smartphone. By turning the concept into a qualifier of “capitalism”, the concept
of surveillance undergoes another alteration as a societal or civilizational descriptor. In fact, discussion of surveillance capitalism offers further contemporary opportunities to rethink the concept of surveillance from several disciplinary perspectives. Disciplines such as political economy, sociology, computing sciences, geography, business studies and others each have interests in how surveillance is
parsed.
In the early twenty-first century several developments in particular warrant careful
attention. One is the political economy of surveillance (Ball & Snider, 2019), referred to above in the debates over ‘surveillance capitalism’, especially in the form
developed by Shoshana Zuboff (2019). Another is the rapid rise of postcolonial and
decolonial theory (Breckenridge, 2014; Mbembé, 2003; McCoy, 2009), not least because many forms of surveillance that are apparent in the global north were first
trialled in colonial regimes of the global south, but also because contemporary
colonial situations depend heavily on surveillance (e.g. Zureik et al., 2013). Each of
these is singularly significant to the concept of surveillance today, both in their
10
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
own right, and also seen in relation to each other, as, for instance, varieties of surveillance capitalism proliferate in the so-called global south.
At least three further strands of surveillance research affect how the concept is
construed: class, race and gender. Discussions of surveillance capitalism cannot be
severed from class relations, (Foster & McChesney, 2014; Mosco, 2014; McQuade,
2018; Fuchs, 2012) and issues of colonialism are inseparable from those of racialisation and surveillance (Benjamin, 2019; Browne, 2015). Artificial Intelligence and
Machine Learning systems designed at the beginning of the pandemic, for example, were hotly debated by civil society and public health researchers, especially
with regard to how and whether racial and ethnic data should be used to train
modelling algorithms within COVID-19 prediction platforms (Singh, 2020; McKenzie, 2020; Choi et al., 2021). The deployment of AI in facial recognition systems, as
another example, is fraught with racial biases, given, among other things, their
propensity to misidentify women of colour (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018). As for
gender, as well as a growing number of feminist studies of surveillance (Taylor,
2020; Dubrofsky & Magnet, 2015), questions of gender identity increasingly feature in surveillance studies (Ball et al., 2009; Abu-Laban, 2015; Kafer & Grinberg,
2019).
The spheres within which the concept of surveillance is used are diverse, for example in national security, policing, marketing, epidemiology and public health. The
concept may be controversial, for instance in marketing, but the practices and tools
in that sphere so closely resemble surveillance in other areas, that using the term
“consumer surveillance” is warranted (Turow, 2021). Surveillance practices can even
be denied in areas such as national security, especially after 9/11 and the Snowden revelations, when the NSA claimed that using “metadata” – which is in fact
very revealing – was not surveillant (Schneier, 2012; Lyon, 2014; Thompson & Lyon, 2021). Significantly, it is datafication and the internet which above all not only
enable surveillance – as dataveillance – to occur on a mass scale, but also to exhibit similar features across different domains. Indeed, surveillance conducted by
internet platforms produces data that is widely sought by government-related
agencies (Srnicek, 2016).
Surveillance as a concept is often treated somewhat one-sidedly as having
salience mainly for the activity of “watching over”, by whatever means. Yet, especially today, when surveillance is no longer restricted to specific security or policing “suspects” or “targets”, but affects everyone, the experience of surveillance becomes an important feature of surveillance effects. Indeed, beyond this, the activities of those subject to surveillance in digital contexts increasingly make a differ-
11
Lyon
ence to the surveillance itself. This occurs through a looping process (Hacking,
2006), in which surveillance subjects become aware of being watched and may
consequently change their behaviour, thus making it all the more essential that
this dimension be considered (Lyon, 2018). Thus, social psychology and cultural
analysis also have insights for surveillance studies.
Lastly, recall that some of the most significant studies of surveillance occur within
works of literature, film and art. Moreover, these have in turn stimulated conceptual work in other fields. For instance, one of the earliest sociological studies of surveillance (Rule, 1974) is clearly influenced by George Orwell’s classic novel, Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Of course, Orwell’s Big Brother has inspired many other arts productions, including the TV series of the same name, which queries the experience
of surveillance (McGrath, 2004). The most recent relevant novel at the time of writing is Dave Eggers’ The Every (2021), a brilliant sequel to The Circle (Eggers, 2013).
In art, surveillance is a seductive theme in many exhibitions, and it is a prominent
muse in ZKM’s CTRL [SPACE] (ZKM, 2001; Allen et al., 2010). Film, too, plays a major role in exploring the concept of surveillance; classics include The Conversation
(1974) and Minority Report (2002), which serendipitously coincided with the post-9/
11 understanding of predictive dataveillance (Kammerer, 2012). Today, the TV series “Black Mirror” (2011-2019) plays a role in sharply alerting viewers to some
negative dimensions of digital surveillance, and documentaries such as “Social
Dilemma” (2020)1 expose aspects of surveillance capitalism.2
Relevance and impact of the concept
The concept of surveillance has a multi-faceted relevance and impact. While acknowledging its early significance in the nineteenth century, its relevance is vastly
greater today. The impact of computing developments in the mid-twentieth century Cold War era considerably raised the profile of the concept of surveillance and
the growth of the commercial internet in the 1990s elevated it further until it
reached exponential levels with social media in the early twenty-first century. The
attacks of 9/11 (Ball & Webster, 2003), the Snowden revelations (Lyon, 2015), the
Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal (Bennett & Lyon, 2019) and above all the
global COVID-19 pandemic (Lyon, 2022b), clearly illustrate this point. Each event
stimulated explosive growth in surveillance, involving both government-corporate
1. The Documentary film “The Social Dilemma” (2020) explores social media and surveillance capitalism.
2. The Big Data Surveillance project, based at Queen’s University, Canada, has also produced a series
of short films under the name Screening Surveillance. They are available on YouTube or on the
Screening Surveillance website.
12
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
partnerships and ordinary citizen-consumers.
The social sorting dimensions of surveillance are crucial to each expansion, increasingly so as “smart” data analysis is infrastructurally implicated. Social sorting
occurs on large, medium and small scales, from global corporations to police departments to micro-businesses. While certain efficiencies may thus be enhanced,
such sorting also has a demonstrable tendency to create or exacerbate the vulnerability of some groups. This applies especially to low-income people, or those
caught in the intersections between class-race-gender categories. The sorting dimensions of contemporary surveillance were noted early on by Oscar H. Gandy Jr.
(2021) and elaborated upon subsequently by many others (e.g. Lyon, 2003; Lyon,
2021).
The majority of surveillance activities today are data-dependent and their outcomes are the product of data gathering, analysis and use (Cheney-Lippold, 2017).
COVID-19 Pandemic-driven technological developments illustrate this well. The
hasty design and development of digital identity systems around the world is one
such example. As governments worked closely with the private sector to develop
smartphone-based identity and vaccine verification solutions, their rationale is at
once a matter of mobility and of economic recovery. This speaks directly to the fact
that modes of surveillance are frequently implicated in processes that affect the
life chances and choices, and the conditions of freedom and fairness, of millions
world-wide.
The smartphone is the primary device for surveillance activities today, built on the
communications network of the internet, and enabling surveillance of a highly personal – identifiable – and geographically locatable kind. While this sprang from
the identifying, tracking and sorting of consumers, and was hugely enhanced by
the advent of social media, the resultant data, and the methods of processing it,
continue to leak into different spaces. Access to such data has been made possible
to policing, security, administrative and other agencies. Political responses demanded by the distinctive modes of surveillance emerging in the twenty-first century include basic rights relating to data-handling. Importantly, notions such as
‘data justice’ (Taylor, 2017; Dencik et al., 2019) and ‘digital citizenship’ (Isin & Ruppert, 2020) are gaining currency for their relevance to contemporary surveillance,
alongside appeals for privacy and data protection.
Conclusion
Analytically, modifications to the concept of surveillance mentioned here are help-
13
Lyon
ing to confront new realities such as “smart” and “platform” surveillance. Innovative proposals, such as data justice, are also important because they inform policy
and regulation, as well as public opinion, at a time when older policy concepts
such as privacy and data protection (Puri, 2020) require careful overhaul (see e.g.
Lyon, 2022a). Future directions for the concept’s usage would do well to follow the
routes of recognising the political economy of surveillance – seen in debates over
surveillance capitalism – and the decolonial approaches that are illuminating not
only the global south, but also in the global north, among colonising3 nations. At
the same time, each conceptual expansion contributes to the vital focus on growing vulnerabilities associated with current data-surveillance practices that are
deepening inequalities of class, race and gender.
Surveillance is a contested concept, just because it is one of such great significance, especially in the present, and because alternative intellectual and political
traditions view it differently. One seemingly intractable issue is whether the associations of surveillance with power and authority mean that its impacts are inescapably negative (Monahan, 2021; Harding, 2018; McQuade, 2018). Given the
cognate evidence of how much surveillance continues to be dependent on military-security, rapacious capitalist and white colonial forces, its dubious reputation
seems well-deserved.
Those who take a different view argue that surveillance may be performed not only in benign fashion – such as in public health surveillance and even in some
types of policing and security surveillance – but also positively, for the common
good (Stoddart, 2021). The latter arguments depend, not on seeing surveillance
through rose-coloured spectacles, but on recalling that the concept of surveillance
always refers to social practices, and thus are subject to principled critique and
open to political challenge. As Gary Marx has stated, “surveillance itself is neither
good nor bad, but context and comportment make it so” (Marx, 2016).
Surveillance is also an inherently critical concept, one that alerts us to some of the
most egregious injustices and entrenched power imbalances visible worldwide.
But it is also increasingly complex and hidden, raising new challenges for empirical investigation. Critical researchers strive to make hidden surveillance data visible and legible to civil society. Equally, surveillance is critical because it questions
the authority of those who argue in techno-solutionist (see Morozov, 2014 for as-
3. Colonising activities are still visible today, for instance in settler-colonial settings, where data sovereignty is an issue, or when data colonialism is at play (see Meijas & Couldry, 2019 as part of this
special section). Michael Kwet (2019) takes this further, exploring “digital colonialism” of US companies in the global south.
14
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
sessment) and technologically determinist (see Zuboff, 2015 for assessment) terms
that dataveillance serves, primarily, the cause of human betterment.
References
Abu-Laban, Y. (2014). Gendering surveillance studies: The empirical and normative promise of
feminist methodology. Surveillance & Society, 13(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i1.5163
Allen, J., Smith, Sarah E. K., & Robertson, K. (2010). Sorting daemons: Art, surveillance regimes and
social control [Exhibition]. Agnes Etherington Art Centre. https://saraheksmith.com/2021/11/sortin
g-daemons-art-surveillance-regimes-and-social-control/
Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive age. University Press of Kansas.
Andrejevic, M., & Selwyn, N. (2022). Facial recognition. Polity.
Austin, L., & Lie, D. (2021). Data trusts and the governance of smart environments: Lessons from
the failure of Sidewalk Labs’ Urban Data Trust. Surveillance & Society, 19(2), 255-261. https://doi.or
g/10.24908/ss.v19i2.14409
Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/00236561003654776
Ball, K. (2021). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. Literature review and policy
recommendations [Report]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. https://data.europa.eu/doi/
10.2760/5137
Ball, K. S., Phillips, D. J., Green, N., & Koskela, H. (2009). Surveillance studies needs gender and
sexuality. Surveillance & Society, 6(4), 352-355. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v6i4.3266
Ball, K., & Snider, L. (2019). The surveillance-industrial complex: A political economy of surveillance.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203094426
Ball, K., & Webster, F. (2003). The intensification of surveillance: Crime, terrorism and warfare in the
information age. Pluto Press.
Beniger, J. R. (1989). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information
society. Harvard University Press.
Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology. Polity.
Bennett, C. J., & Lyon, D. (2019). Data-driven elections: Implications and challenges for democratic
societies. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1433
Breckenridge, K. (2014). Biometric state: The global politics of identification and surveillance in South
Africa, 1850 to the present (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113
9939546
Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press. https://doi.or
g/10.1215/9780822375302
Brunner, L. R. (2022). Higher education institutions as eyes of the state: Canada’s international
15
Lyon
student compliance regime. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/147
67724.2022.2037407
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial
gender classification. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency,
81, 77-91. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press. htt
ps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gk0941
Choi, K. H., Denice, P., Haan, M., & Zajacova, A. (2021). Studying the social determinants of
COVID‐19 in a data vacuum. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 58(2),
146-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12336
Clarke, R. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM, 31(5),
498-512. https://doi.org/10.1145/42411.42413
Clarke, R. (2019). Risks inherent in the digital surveillance economy: A research agenda. Journal of
Information Technology, 34(1), 59-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396218815559
Dandeker, C. (1994). Surveillance, power and modernity: Bureaucracy and discipline from 1700 to the
present day. Polity Press.
Darmody, A., & Zwick, D. (2020). Manipulate to empower: Hyper-relevance and the contradictions of
marketing in the age of surveillance capitalism. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 205395172090411. http
s://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720904112
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
Dencik, L., Hintz, A., Redden, J., & Treré, E. (2019). Exploring data justice: Conceptions, applications
and directions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 873-881. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691
18X.2019.1606268
Dubrofsky, R. E., & Magnet, S. A. (Eds.). (2015). Feminist surveillance studies. Duke University Press. h
ttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1198x2b
European Data Protection Supervisor. (2021). Surveillance. https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/o
ur-work/subjects/surveillance_en
Finn, J. (2011). Seeing surveillantly: Surveillance as social practice. In A. Doyle, R. Lippert, & D. Lyon
(Eds.), Eyes everywhere: The global growth of camera surveillance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203141625
Foster, J. B., & McChesney, R. W. (2014). Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the
military-industrial complex, and the digital age. Monthly Review, 66(3). https://monthlyreview.org/2
014/07/01/surveillance-capitalism/
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Gallimard.
Fuchs, C. (2013). Political economy and surveillance theory. Critical Sociology, 39(5), 671-687. http
s://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511435710
Gandy Jr., O. H. (1989). The surveillance society: Information technology and bureaucratic social
control. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1989.tb0104
0.x
Gandy Jr., O. H. (2021). The panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information (2nd ed.). Oxford
16
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197579411.001.0001
Goldberg, D. T. (2021). Dread: Facing futureless futures. Polity Press.
Hacking, I. (2006). Making up people. London Review of Books, 28(16). https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-pap
er/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology,
51(4), 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280
Haggerty, K. D., & Trottier, D. (2015). Surveillance and/of nature. Society & Animals, 23(4), 400-420.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341304
Harding, J. M. (2018). Performance, transparency, and the cultures of surveillance. University of
Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9780711
Higgs, E. (2004). The information state in England: The central collection of information on citizens
since 1500. Palgrave Macmillan.
Igo, S. E. (2018). The known citizen: A history of privacy in modern America. Harvard University Press.
Isin, E., & Ruppert, E. (2020). Being digital citizens (Second edition). Rowman & Littlefield.
Jeffreys-Jones, R. (2017). We know all about you: The story of surveillance in Britain and America.
Oxford University Press.
Kafer, G., & Grinberg, D. (2019). Editorial: Queer surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 17(5), 592-601.
https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i5.13541
Kammerer, D. (2012). Surveillance in literature, film and television. In K. S. Ball, K. Haggerty, & D.
Lyon (Eds.), Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. Routledge.
Kanno-Youngs, Z., & Schmidt, M. S. (2019, April 11). Comey defends Trump campaign surveillance: ‘I
have never thought of that as spying’. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/u
s/politics/comey-trump.html
Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences.
SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473909472
Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race
& Class, 60(4), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172
Lauer, J. (2012). Surveillance history and the history of new media: An evidential paradigm. New
Media & Society, 14(4), 566-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811420986
Lauer, J. (2017). Creditworthy. A history of consumer surveillance and financial identity in America.
Columbia University Press.
Legal Information Institute. (2021). Surveillance. In Wex. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/surveilla
nce
Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. University of Minnesota Press.
Lyon, D. (Ed.). (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination. Routledge.
Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Polity Press.
17
Lyon
Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Polity Press.
Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
Lyon, D. (2021). Sorting. In N. B. Thylstrup, D. Agostinho, A. Ring, C. D’Ignazio, & K. Veel (Eds.),
Uncertain archives: Critical keywords for big data (pp. 477-484). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.755
1/mitpress/12236.003.0052
Lyon, D. (2022a). Beyond big data surveillance: Freedom and fairness [Research report]. https://www.s
urveillance-studies.ca/beyond
Lyon, D. (2022b). Pandemic surveillance. Polity Press.
Marx, G. T. (1985). The surveillance society: The threat of 1984-style techniques. The Futurist, 19,
21-26.
Marx, G. T. (2016). Windows into the soul: Surveillance and society in an age of high technology. The
University of Chicago Press.
Mbembé, J.-A. (2003). Necropolitics (L. Meintjes, Trans.). Public Culture, 15(1), 11-40. https://muse.jh
u.edu/article/39984
McCoy, A. W. (2009). Policing America’s empire: The United States, the Philippines and the rise of the
surveillance state. The University of Wisconsin Press.
McGrath, J. E. (2004). Loving Big Brother. Performance, privacy and surveillance space. Routledge.
McKenzie, K. (2020). Race and ethnicity data collection during COVID-19 in Canada: If you are not
counted you cannot count on the pandemic response [Research paper]. The Royal Society of Canada. h
ttps://rsc-src.ca/en/race-and-ethnicity-data-collection-during-covid-19-in-canada-if-you-are-not-co
unted-you-cannot-count
McQuade, B. (2018). Windows into the soul or the clouded glass of surveillance studies. Critical
Sociology, 44(4–5), 815-824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517751588
Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. (2019). Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1476
3/2019.4.1428
Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. American
Political Science Review, 85(1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962879
Monahan, T. (2021). Reckoning with COVID, racial violence, and the perilous pursuit of transparency.
Surveillance & Society, 19(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v19i1.14698
Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.
Mosco, V. (2014). To the cloud: Big data in a turbulent world. Routledge.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford
University Press.
OED. (2011). Surveillance. In Oxford english dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker and Warburg.
Puri, A. (2020). A theory of privacy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3686202
18
Internet Policy Review 11(4) | 2022
Rule, J. (1974). Private lives and public surveillance: Social control in the computer age. Shocken.
Schneier, B. (2012). Liars and outliers: Enabling the trust that society needs to thrive. Wiley.
Sewell, G. (2021). Surveillance: A key idea for business and society. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.432
4/9781351180566
Singh, S. (2020, May 27). Collecting race-based data during coronavirus pandemic may fuel
dangerous prejudices. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/collecting-race-based-data-du
ring-coronavirus-pandemic-may-fuel-dangerous-prejudices-137284
Srnicek, N. (2016). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Stalder, F. (2009). Privacy is not the antidote to surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 1(1), 120–124. h
ttps://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i1.3397
Stoddart, E. (2021). The common gaze. SPCK.
Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally.
Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335
Taylor, L. (2020). The price of certainty: How the politics of pandemic data demand an ethics of
care. Big Data & Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720942539
Thompson, S., & Lyon, D. (2021). Pixies, pop-up intelligence, and sandbox play: The New Analytic
Model and national security research in Canada. In D. Lyon & D. Murakami Wood (Eds.), Big data
surveillance and security intelligence. University of British Columbia Press.
Tucker, H. (2017). City of light; city of poison: Murder, magic and the first police chief of Paris. W. W.
Norton.
Turow, J. (2021). The voice catchers: How marketers listen in to exploit your feelings, your privacy and
your wallet. Yale University Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm
and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
ZKM. (2001). CTRL [Space]. Rhetorics of surveillance: From Bentham to Big Brother [Archive entry].
Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe. https://zkm.de/en/event/2001/10/ctrl-space-rhetorics-of-survei
llance
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization.
Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. Public Affairs.
Zureik, E. (2003). Theorizing surveillance: The case of the workplace. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as
social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination. Routledge.
Zureik, E., Lyon, D., & Abu-Laban, Y. (Eds.). (2013). Surveillance and control in Israel/Palestine:
Population, territory and power. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203845967
19
Published by
Lyon
in cooperation with