The Sociology of New Media (MS7055)

Is it correct to say we live in a surveillance society?Is it a necessary evil?

(Figure 1.)

Boursinou Maria –Nerina Student No: 12903641

A few days after having started to write this essay I found myself in needof a cup of coffee so I went to the nearest coffee shop to get one. While waiting in the queue I took the last paper of a newspaper from the stand next to me. Under the paper, there was a yellow sign with black letters: “CCTVin operation”. I smiled and thought of getting a picture. I decided not to as this might seem strange. Do we live in a surveillance society? I think YES!

This essay will examine the following question: Is itcorrect to say we live in a surveillance society? Is it anecessary evil? With the use of examples and academicreferences I will argue that we truly live in a highlysurveillance society where monitoring is indeed essentialin some fields as it can ensure some protection againstcriminal actions for instance. However, bearing in mindthe recent scandals, about the National Security Agency,

that exposed an unprecedented violation of human rights(especially the Fourth Amendment), it is imperative thatstrict limitations are applied in order surveillance toexist in a different form.

While the definition of the term “surveillance” asproposed by Lyon remains the same, that is: “The focused,systematic and routine attention to personal details forpurposes of influence, management, protection ordirection”, nowadays there is a need to distinguishbetween the different kinds of surveillance.

Before the appearance of the Internet, surveillancereferred to the traditional one taking place in theoffline world using conventional electronic equipment ofgathering information. However, in the information age,we should take into consideration the existence of socialsurveillance, a kind that is taking place in the Internetand has already proven to be more dangerous as far asprivacy is concerned.

Traditional and social surveillance differ in many ways,some of them are power, hierarchy and reciprocity(Marwick, A. 2012). In addition, they differ to the toolsthey use. Although both of them are present in a person’severyday life, the mechanisms used in traditionalsurveillance are usually known to people and very oftenvisible by them. On the other hand, social surveillanceuses invisible to the eye and indirect means for trackingone’s preferences and digital traces (e.g. Cookies,social media sites, spying software etc.). The mostinteresting fact about that, which also constitutes adifference between the two kinds, is that in traditionalsurveillance, the majority of people are not voluntarilysubject to monitoring, even though they may not oppose toit, sometimes because they cannot. But in cases of socialsurveillance, and particularly in social media, it is

people themselves who let others have a sneak peek oftheir life and actions by broadcasting privateinformation. Another spotted difference is that intraditional surveillance the person behind the cameraremains unknown while in social people know that theywatch and are being watched by a circle of friends,relatives, co- workers etc. … or at least that is whatthey thought before some scandals broke out.

At this point, it is essential to mention another formof social surveillance, the “dataveillance” or commercialsurveillance. “Dataveillance refers to the aggregationand collection of personal data provided by users bysocial media companies.” (Clarke 1997, Philips 2010 citedin Marwick, A 2012) Every time an internet user typessomething into Google, Bing or any other browser, everytime he enters a site, his moves are being stored as theyare precious indicators of his preferences and likes,something that gives advertising and commercial companiesthe opportunity to develop a more focused and targetedmarketing campaign hoping to profit for it.

What is more, it is interesting to briefly explore onemore kind of surveillance, named “the non- surveillance”.As Agamben underlines in “The state of exception”, theselective non- surveillance can be even worse in terms ofdamaging basic rights than more “routine”. (Agamben, G.2004). The key word here is the word “selective”. Anexisting record of one’s identification documents usuallyensures his rights as a citizen. A state that do not careto have or give proof of identification to a part ofpopulation, not only pushes it toward marginalization butalso facilitates the infringement of basic human rightssuch as freedom and access to health. “If nobody knowsyou exist, how are they going to defend your (violated)rights?”

“More and more we are surveilled in everyday life aswe make telephone calls, pay by debit card, walk into a store into the path of security cameras or enter a library through electronic turnstiles” (Ball, K and Webster, F. 2012)

All the above show some key differences betweentraditional and social surveillance as well as some otherforms of surveillance in general. What we find really

important toprove here ishow surveillanceexists in someof ouractivities andhas become anintegral part ofour everydaylife.

Namely, CCTV and speed cameras are used for purposes ofsecurity against theft in shops, public areas or to setlimits of running in a highway. Biometric access deviceslike fingerprint face and iris recognition will save us

time when entering a building as one does not have toshow identification papers. The DNA test can revealpotentially inherited risk factors, while a GPS trackercan locate a stolen vehicle. (Marx, G, 2002. What’s New Aboutthe “New Surveillance”? Classifying for Change and Continuity*.Surveillance & Society, [Online]. 1, 29. Available at:http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1/whatsnew.pdf[Accessed 11 January 2014].) Common as these devices tend toseem, when misused they can serve as basic traditionalsurveillance tools that capture and store sensitive dataof a person’s body or location, data that can be searchedand used anytime in the future.

Social surveillance can be conducted by using the mostordinary tools of the Web 2.0, like social media andsocial networking sites as for example facebook, twitter,Pinterest, Tumblr as well as applications for check –inin places, calculating bedtime hours, posting and sharingpictures, listening to music, instant messaging etc.These features which consume a great respect of aperson’s time during the day, have one characteristic incommon: They back up every information and do not deleteanything. “Whatever goes on the internet stays there”accessible by almost everyone. Of course, except these“innocent” potential surveillance tools, there existsspecific software and/or malware designed explicitly tointrude personal computers and “steal” information. Theseare most commonly used by hackers and its existence canbe easily proved if we consider that almost everybodyuses an antivirus to keep his computer safe.

In” dataveillance”, an illustrative example of commonpractice would be the use of “cookies”. On the one hand,cookies enable the user login as they remember hisdetails so he does not have to put them again and againevery time he visits the site. On the other hand, theyform a very useful tool for the company to “trace hisclicks». Imagine shopping on your favorite online shop or

just browsing and your moves being tracked. The mostinteresting fact about that, though, is that only lately,in 2012, an EU law obliged sites to inform visitors thatthey are using the particular tool to detect theirdigital promenade on the site. (Cookie Warning Does Not Put OffMost UK Web Users - eMarketer . 2014.Cookie Warning Does Not Put Off Most UKWeb Users - eMarketer . [ONLINE] Availableat: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Cookie-Warning-Not-Put-Off-Most-UK-Web-Users/1010157. [Accessed 11 January 2014]. So now, sitesusually warn the users that they use cookie policy aslong as they have entered the sites and give them theopportunity to “accept and continue” or leave.

A second example could be the one of companies sellingcustomer’s data on third parties in order to earn money.Some of these companies provide their services free ofcharge (eg. Mobile applications) and by giving away theiruser’s information as well as trust, find a way toprofit. In this case, customers are informed about thatpractice as it is included in the long and blurry list of“Terms and Conditions” they usually DO NOT read.“Commercial surveillance encourages or requires people toreveal their shopping preferences and habits so thatcompanies can […] sell their customer data to others.(Haggerty, K Samatas, M. 2010)

In our society, the existence of the “non-surveillance”can be proved by the unwillingness of states (like Greecefor example) to hospitalize and initiate procedures forthe documentation of immigrants. Instead, detention campsare used to “accommodate” these people until they arefinally deported. Several press articles as well as HumanRights Organizations confirm the fears Agamben expressedabout the loss of Rights of “undesired” citizens, alongwith condemning such practices. (BBC News - Greek police endriot at migrant detention camp. 2014. BBC News - Greek police endriot at migrant detention camp. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23653493. [Accessed 11 January2014].)

“Surveillance is about control; It tends to produce conditions of constraint, where human and technical action is regulated and limited.” (Haggerty, D Samatas, M. 2010)

Even though these examples clearly show the potentialor in some cases the existing dangers regarding privacyissues, the use of these tools/devices/services etc.remain high and continuous something that happens partlybecause they have been proved too helpful, useful and -why not- attractive for the modern society to abandonthem. In other words, they mark the “paradoxical

character ofsurveillance: Itintrudes and enables at

one and the same time”(Ball, K and Webster, F2012).

I n the previousparagraphs we broughtevidence thatsurveillance can befound in various aspects

of our daily routine. However, monitoring can beconducted in ways more opaque and invasive that thepreviously described, ways that lead to the creation of a“transparent society”. In the following paragraphs we aregoing to prove that view because we believe that beforewe answer whether surveillance is a necessary or not weshould examine some important factors: Which are thereasons invoked for the existence and growth ofsurveillance and whether they are sufficient so that wegive up our rights in privacy.

There are numerous views that support the idea that thepanoptic regimes, aims to produce “desired docile bodies”(Lyon, D. 2006). In other words, constant monitoring, theknowledge of an ambiguous monitoring or even thepossibility of that, is able to create a scared, moreobedient population. On the one hand, given the fact thatthe majority of the developed world live in significantlysurveilled countries, (World's Top Surveillance Societies --Updated with link | Threat Level | Wired.com. 2014. World's TopSurveillance Societies -- Updated with link | Threat Level |Wired.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/12/worlds-top-surv/. [Accessed11 January 2014].) the assumption that transparency canindeed regulate people’s actions in a great degree do notseem exorbitant. On the other hand, it is not that easyto convince a whole population to unopposed acceptregulations and tools that so flagrantly invade theirprivacy . However, one may succeed doing it if he managesto make them (the population) feel that they arethreatened by a serious danger. That exactly, is themost powerful argument every government has ever used topersuade their people about their intentions: “To achievesafety against the enemy’s attacks”.

“After the terrorist attacks of September 11 the Bush administration declared” a war on terror” involving open and covert military operations, new security legislation…” "War on Terrorism". 2014. "War on Terrorism". [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

David Lyon, in “Surveillance after September 11”, talksabout threats during Cold how security forces during theCold War were increasingly engaged with the “enemywithin”, which could include labor unionists, peaceactivists and minority political parties. (Lyon, D.2003). The events of 9/11 when Islamic members of theextremist Al- Qaeda group hijacked and led two airplanesto crash in the twin towers of the World Trade Centresomething that resulted to the total collapse of theTowers within hours and the death of almost 2,996people,  (9/11 Death Statistics | Statistic Brain. 2014. 9/11 Death

Statistics | Statistic Brain.[ONLINE] Availableat: http://www.stati

st icbrain.com/911-death-statistics/.[Accessed 11 January2014].) signified

an entering a new,different and moreharsh era as far

as surveillance andprivate Rights ofthe individual areconcerned.

From the post 9/11 era until now, we are witnessing anintensification of surveillance for security reasons asthey are claimed to be. In his speech back then, GeorgeBush, former President of the U.S.A, addressed a clearwarning to the terrorists but also to the American peoplesaying that : “We will direct every resource at ourcommand, every means of diplomacy, every tool ofintelligence” (Text of George Bush's speech | World news |theguardian.com . 2014. Text of George Bush's speech | World news |theguardian.com . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13.[Accessed 11 January 2014].) to win this war on terror. So hedid having the support of various other countries.

The recent revelations of the former National SecurityAgency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden in collaborationwith the British newspaper “The Guardian”, concerning thesecret use of a program called “Prism” by the NSA,brought the American citizens into the painfulrealization that the levels of surveillance into theirprivate life and data went a lot more far than they hadknowledge of and had approved. As the time went on, thecase which had already obtained a universal interest,further unfolded showing that except U.S.A, many

European countries, among them the United Kingdom,Germany, France, Spain and Sweden had developed programslike Prism in order to spy on their own citizens. (Snowdenleak reveals Europe's role in mass surveillance programs. . 2014.Snowden leak reveals Europe's role in mass surveillance programs. .[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/01/snowden_leak_reveals_europe_s_role_in_mass_surveillance_programs.html. [Accessed 11January 2014].)

Other news that spread like fire were those referring tothe involvement of huge technology companies like Yahoo!,facebook, Google and Skype for instance and confirmed thesuspicions that people’s private conversations,photographs, video as well as all files or stored datacould be traced and obtained by the NSA. Updates as such,brought the scandal directly into every single housewhere even one person uses the internet and at the sametime affected the companies’ reputation in a damagingway. As Wired characteristically says in an article :“Silicon Valley was reeling, collateral damage in the war onterror. And it was only going to get worse.”( How the NSA AlmostKilled the Internet | Threat Level | Wired.com. 2014. How the NSAAlmost Killed the Internet | Threat Level | Wired.com. [ONLINE]Available at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/how-the-us-almost-killed-the-internet/. [Accessed 11 January 2014].)

When asked about the issue, Barrack Obama, President ofthe United States gave the following answer:

“You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to haveto make some choices as a society. ... There are trade-offsinvolved."

And added :

Τhis is “a modest encroachment on privacy that was necessaryto defend the United States from attack.” (Obama defendssurveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security | Reuters . 2014.Obama defends surveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security |Reuters . [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130608. [Accessed 11 January 2014].)

Taking these facts into serious consideration it is timeto decide whether they provide an adequate justification,convincing enough to make us give away our fundamentalrights to privacy and free speech.

If we want to have a realistic point of view we shouldbear in mind the technological changes and the progressour world has done through the ages because all that iswhat make surveillance a necessity for the modernsociety. “Information societies are perforce surveillancesocieties” (Giddens A. 1990, Lyon, D. 2011) . Therefore,yes, surveillance is indeed a “necessary evil” in certainfields as “surveillance systems are meant to ensure thatwe’ve paid correctly or receive welfare benefits, thatterrorism and drug- trafficking are contained...” (Lyon,D.1994). But does not at all mean that we, as a society,have to accept it unconditionally and allow to regulateevery aspect of our life. In this last part of the essay,I will first provide a list of examples where I findsurveillance useful. Then, some examples of potentiallimitations which can possibly lead to a transformationof the character of surveillance towards a moredemocratic one will follow. Some examples of limitationsthat are already taking place will also be brieflydescribed for explanatory reasons.

Indicative cases where surveillance IS a “necessaryevil”:

1.) In the world as it is now constructed, theoperation of CCTV cameras in shopping malls may bean unpleasant sight but I think that is so well –established that it is not going to change. And in adegree I might find it a bit useful since it assistsin the protection of thieves.

2.) The same applies to bank transactions. I findidentification essential when it comes to mattersconcerning money and as long as one has the optionnot to use his bank card for every buying but pay incash instead, it is completely on the will of thecustomer to decide if his transactions will bemonitored or not.

3.) Typical airport checks also belong in thecategory of “acceptable” surveillance, sincealthough intrusive they may be, a search forflammables or dangerous objects or a quarantine in aperson with adhesive illness can guarantee (most ofthe times) safety on board . Of course, as the caseof 9/11 taught us, terrorist will always find analternative way to succeed but generally, airportsurveillance can be proven useful even if it is toprevent a fire.

Limitations/ when surveillance IS NOT a “necessary evil”

1.) Dataveillance: As stated before, dataveillanceor commercial surveillance is not a rare form ofsurveillance and almost every person who uses theinternet faces it in a daily basis. A limitationthat could be applied here is the existence of a lawthat forces companies to make the tracking andstoring of customer’s data optional. Moreover, theyshould be obliged to inform customers about thattactic as soon as they enter the site and ask fortheir permission. For the customers who press the“decline” button, there should be an option to“continue to the site”. Companies could as wellprovide some sort of compensation to the users thatagree to give away their information as a way tothank them and maybe give them a motive. In thiscase, surveillance is not a “necessary evil” as it

only serves marketing and economic purposes andshould not be imposed on people.

2.) When it comes to sharing their user’s privateinformation with the government, social networkingsites operate under specific guidelines.Specifically, in order to disclosure any sensitiveprivate information about a user, legal actionshould be first taken. As Twitter states: “non-public information about Twitter users is notreleased except as lawfully required by appropriatelegal process such as a subpoena, court order, orother valid legal process”. Despite the fact thatfacebook has a similar policy for such issues, asthe NSA scandal showed, that did not stop it fromcomplying with the governmental request. Therefore,either these sites as well as companies like Yahoo!and Google have to stop keeping a record of user’sdata or pressure by the users should be put on themdeclaring that if they do not stick to theguidelines they will boycott the services. It is thecustomers and only them who can give a clear messageto the companies that they will not tolerate samepractices to be repeated. (Tech Giants Issue Call forLimits on Government Surveillance of Users - NYTimes.com. 2014.Tech Giants Issue Call for Limits on Government Surveillance ofUsers - NYTimes.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html?_r=1&.[Accessed 11 January 2014].)What is more, the example of Dilma Rousseff,President of Brazil, who initiated efforts for a newlegislation that would force the companies mentionedto store gathered data locally, so they would begoverned by Brazil’s privacy laws can be considereda good start to be adopted by other countries aswell and be supported by companies who seek to

protect their reputation. ( Brazil's Rousseff targetsinternet companies after NSA spying | Reuters . 2014. Brazil'sRousseff targets internet companies after NSA spying |Reuters . [ONLINE] Availableat:http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-security-snowden-brazil-idUKBRE98B14R20130912. [Accessed 11 January2014].)

3.) From time to times, governments have madeefforts to impose cyber-bills, claiming that theywill “secure networks and users against cyberattacks”. Examples of such bills are CISPA (CyberIntelligence Sharing and Protection Act) and SOPA(Stop Online Piracy Act). However, the same billshave been criticized to have an intrusive character,as well as too little limitations and civilliberties guidelines and have provoked majorreaction from both people and companies puttingobstacles and delaying their operation. (What is CISPA,and Why Should You Care? | News & Opinion | PCMag.com . 2014.What is CISPA, and Why Should You Care? | News & Opinion |PCMag.com . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp. [Accessed11 January 2014].) Cases like these have paved the roadfor further awareness and taking action. AfterEdward Snowden revelations, it is the citizens incooperation with the companies and hopefully somegovernments that have to push for a brand newlegislation which will promote and ensure theadoption of more transparent ways of surveillance,ways that will have as starting point that peoplehave indefeasible rights and that “not everybody isguilty until proven innocent.” In levels of personal

action, people can always turn to the use ofsoftware designed to hide their location.

The suggestionsmentioned above

were simple examples ofactions that can

send a message that surveillance is not a “necessaryevil” and that, even for purposes of security, shouldhave limits and respect people’s rights. Because theserights constitute a cornerstone for democracy wherefreedom of speech is ensured. In order these or otherefforts to initiate, awareness of the public should bebuilt and ideas that “if you have nothing to hide thenyou have nothing to fear from surveillance” should beabandoned once and for all.

In conclusion, in this essay it is supported that welive in surveillance society. Even if it exists in

different forms, from CCTV cameras to social media“stalking”, surveillance is ambiguous in our everydaylife. Moreover, in the question if it is a “necessaryevil” the answer given is that up to a point it is, sinceit helps in securing money transactions, or combatingproblems from theft to terrorism. However, nowadays, theway in which surveillance is being done is an extremelydangerous and unethical one as it proven violates basichuman rights as that of privacy. For that reason, it isstrongly believed that limitations concerning the natureof surveillance should be set, so it becomes moredemocratic and less intrusive.

Bibliography

Agamben, G. (2005) The State of Exception, London: TheUniversity of Chicago PressBall, K. et al. (2012) handbook of surveillance studies, London:Routledge.

Ball, K and Webster, F. (2003) The Intensification of Surveillance:Crime, Terrorism and Warfare in the Information Age. London: PlutoPress Lyon, D. (2007) Surveillance Studies: an overview, Cambridge:Polity.

Lyon, D. (2006) Theorizing Surveillance: the panopticon and beyond,Willian Publishing (e-book).

Lyon, D. (2005) Surveillance after September 11, Cambridge:Polity Press.

Lyon, D. (2003) Surveillance as Social Sorting, London: Routledge(e-book).

Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring everyday life,Buckingham: OUP (e-book).

Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: the rise of the surveillance societyLondon: Polity.

Marwick, A. (2012) The Public Domain: Surveillance in Everyday Life,Surveillance and Society 9(4).

Marx, G. (2002) What’s New About the “New Surveillance”? Classifyingfor Change and Continuity’, Surveillance and Society

Monahan, T. (2006) Surveillance and Security: Technological politics andpower in everyday life, London: Routledge.

List of References

Figure 1: Mayes Malcom, (2013), He sees you when you'resleeping [ONLINE]. Availableat:http://politicaltheatre.net/post/71104811196 [Accessed10 January 14].

Marwick, A. 2012

Clarke 1997, Philips 2010 cited in Marwick, A 2012

Agamben, G. 2004

Ball, K and Webster, F. 2012

Haggerty, K Samatas, M. 2010

Lyon, D. 2006

Lyon, D. 2003

Giddens A. 1990, Lyon, D. 2011

Lyon, D.1994

Marx, G, 2002. What’s New About the “New Surveillance”?Classifying for Change and Continuity*. Surveillance &Society, [Online]. 1, 29. Available at:

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1/whatsnew.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2014].

Cookie Warning Does Not Put Off Most UK Web Users -eMarketer . 2014.Cookie Warning Does Not Put Off Most UK Web Users -eMarketer . [ONLINE] Availableat: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Cookie-Warning-Not-Put-Off-Most-UK-Web-Users/1010157. [Accessed 11 January2014]

BBC News - Greek police end riot at migrant detentioncamp. 2014. BBC News - Greek police end riot at migrantdetention camp. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23653493.[Accessed 11 January 2014].

World's Top Surveillance Societies -- Updated with link |Threat Level | Wired.com. 2014. World's Top SurveillanceSocieties -- Updated with link | Threat Level |Wired.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/12/worlds-top-surv/. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

9/11 Death Statistics | Statistic Brain. 2014. 9/11 DeathStatistics | Statistic Brain. [ONLINE] Availableat: http://www.statisticbrain.com/911-death-statistics/.[Accessed 11 January 2014].

Text of George Bush's speech | World news |theguardian.com . 2014. Text of George Bush's speech |World news | theguardian.com . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

Snowden leak reveals Europe's role in mass surveillanceprograms. . 2014. Snowden leak reveals Europe's role inmass surveillance programs. . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/01/snowden_leak_reveals_europe_s_role_in_mass_surveillance_programs.html. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet | Threat Level |Wired.com. 2014. How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet |Threat Level | Wired.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/how-the-us-almost-killed-the-internet/. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

Obama defends surveillance effort as 'trade-off' forsecurity | Reuters . 2014. Obama defends surveillanceeffort as 'trade-off' for security | Reuters . [ONLINE]Available at:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130608. [Accessed 11January 2014].

Tech Giants Issue Call for Limits on GovernmentSurveillance of Users - NYTimes.com. 2014. Tech GiantsIssue Call for Limits on Government Surveillance of Users- NYTimes.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html?_r=1&. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

Brazil's Rousseff targets internet companies after NSAspying | Reuters . 2014. Brazil's Rousseff targetsinternet companies after NSA spying | Reuters . [ONLINE]Available at:http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-security-snowden-brazil-idUKBRE98B14R20130912. [Accessed 11January 2014].

.What is CISPA, and Why Should You Care? | News & Opinion| PCMag.com . 2014. What is CISPA, and Why Should YouCare? | News & Opinion | PCMag.com . [ONLINE] Availableat: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp.[Accessed 11 January 2014].

Edward Snowden's 'open letter to the Brazilian people' –in full | World news | theguardian.com . 2014. EdwardSnowden's 'open letter to the Brazilian people' – in full

| World news | theguardian.com . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/edward-snowden-letter-brazilian-people. [Accessed 11 January2014

NSA files decoded: Edward Snowden's surveillancerevelations explained | World news | theguardian.com .2014. NSA files decoded: Edward Snowden's surveillancerevelations explained | World news | theguardian.com .[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

War on Terrorism". 2014. "War on Terrorism". [ONLINE]Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

War on Terrorism". 2014. "War on Terrorism". [ONLINE]Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

Should Companies be Allowed to Profit by SellingCustomers' Data? - WSJ.com. 2014. Should Companies beAllowed to Profit by Selling Customers' Data? - WSJ.com.[ONLINE] Available at:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304410204579143981978505724. [Accessed 11 January 2014].

. 2014. . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.refinery29.com/2013/09/52600/fitness-apps-sell-information. [Accessed 11 January 2014].