Dissertation

Word Count:9998
E t h i c s N u m b e r : 1 5 7 0 4 P a g e | 1
How do contemporary surveillance
systems and methods limit our
freedom? A study of the United
Kingdom and North America
Nicolas Chimonides
26072769
3rd
February 2016

Word Count:9998
Abstract
Freedomcan be definedasa citizen’sabilitytoact, think and feel.Itisaffectedbysocial and political
discourses that impinges on the privacy and rights of citizens. Citizens’ sense of place is how they
identify themselves within their urban spaces, their social, political or economic position within a
social hierarchy, and their sense of belonging. All of these things are affected by two predominant
types of surveillance: technological surveillance and police profiling surveillance. Questionnaires
were created to observe how opinionson surveillance intensityand success differinfour regionsof
London, depending on three different categorical factors that are often used in the targeting of
surveillance systems –ethnicity,religionandsocioeconomicstatus.The researchshowedhowethnic
minorities, citizens of Muslim faith and low-income citizens tend to experience more limitationsto
theirfreedomof opportunities.Keyliterature includedthe keyconceptsof panopticismand double-
consciousnessforthese groupsofpeople bothwithinthe UnitedKingdomand variousareasof North
America. The research proved that in contemporary societies, these concepts are still relevant and
will potentially become much more significant should current levels of surveillance continue.

Word Count:9998
Acknowledgements
Iwouldlike tomentionDr.JamesDyke forhissupervisionandguidance overthe courseof myresearch.
A special thanks to the 100 members of the public in the various areas of London who have been of
crucial importance tothe analysisandformationofthe project. Iwouldlike toparticularlyacknowledge
Constantinos Chimonides, Pamela Chimonides, and Kypros Menicou for proof reading this report.
Finally,thankyou tomy otherfamilyandfriendsforthe moral supportinthe research of this project.

Word Count:9998
Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................7
2.1: Technological Surveillance...................................................................................................7
2.2: Policing and Profiling Surveillance........................................................................................8
2.3: Overview.............................................................................................................................9
2.4: Research Aims.....................................................................................................................9
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................10
3.1: Background....................................................................................................................... 10
3.2: Sampling and Procedures...................................................................................................14
4. TECHNOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE ....................................................................................14
4.1: CCTV Operations ............................................................................................................... 15
4.2: Digital Surveillance............................................................................................................ 19
4.3: Body Surveillance.............................................................................................................. 20
5. POLICING AND PROFILING SURVEILLANCE .....................................................................21
5.1: Racialisation...................................................................................................................... 21
5.2: The War on Terror ............................................................................................................. 23
6. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................25
References...............................................................................................................................27
Appendices..............................................................................................................................32
Appendix A.............................................................................................................................. 32
Project Programme Form 1...................................................................................................32
Ethics Form .......................................................................................................................... 35
Risk Assessment Form.......................................................................................................... 39
Project Progress Form 2........................................................................................................41
Appendix B.............................................................................................................................. 43
Information and Consent Form............................................................................................. 43
Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 45

Word Count:9998
Content of Figures
Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...10
Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..11
Figure 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...15
Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...18
Content of Tables
Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....19
Table 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21
Table 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22

Word Count:9998
1. INTRODUCTION
“When it comes to crime prevention, ‘surveillance’ conjures up visions of asymmetric and
unverifiable social monitoring” (Parnaby and Victoria Reed, 2009).
Parnabyand VictoriaReed’squoteillustratesthe foundationof limitationsthatsurveillancecancreate
within the geographical spaces that many different people inhabit. An idea of “asymmetrical”
surveillance indicatesthat,while the perceivedactionof surveillance istomonitorthe behavioursand
activities of individualsto manage, influence and, ultimately, protect them(Lyon,2007), it creates an
imbalance of freedom for certain demographics within societies, and has a permanent effect on the
shaping of their personal places within spaces today. These spaces can be defined as “surveillance
societies” (Lyon, 2001).
Lyon’s studies describe surveillance societies as spaces where methods to watch over citizens exist
through political-economic, infrastructural and technological contexts. A ubiquitous sense of fear of
street crime is a powerful incentive for politicians to support the innovation of technological
surveillance,suchasthe surge of closed-circuittelevisioncameras(CCTV)inBritainsince thelate 1980s,
or the accentuationonpolicingmethodstopreventpotentialcrime (EricsonandHaggerty1997, p.23).
Contemporary human geography recognises the psychological, emotional and physical effects that
surveillance canbringonthe citizenswithinsurveillance societies.AsParnabyandVictoriaReed(2009)
suggested, asymmetrical surveillance reinforces power relations between humans in the form of a
social hierarchy. Citizens who work withinthe State construct boundariesacross the different effects
of surveillance, and ultimately creates injustice between demographics depending on issues such as
race, gender, age, appearance, location or employment sector.
Glover(2008) suggeststhatincreasinglevelsof surveillanceisshiftingtowardsa“white”society.White
citizensandwhite-collarworkerstendtobenefit the mostfromsurveillancemethods,whilelowsocial-
capital citizens are oftenleftexcludedfromsociety duetothe waythat overtformsof surveillance limit
their social, economic and political rights, and manipulates public opinion on them (Bourdieu, 1986;
Cook, 1999). This ultimately creates a geography of rejection, where these groups of people are
marginalised feel as though they either don’t belong or should not belong in the spaces they inhabit
(Massey, 1995. P.194).
The impactsof surveillance onfreedominclude how oursense of place isshaped withinwiderspaces.
Cresswell(2004) evaluatesthe rolethatordinarycitizenstake inthese spacesinordertosee howplace
worksin social hierarchies.A sense of place hasa significantimpactonhow we identify ourselvesand
interactwith eachother.The introductionof surveillance methodsintothese spacescanthereforere-
shape and re-affirm identitiesof individuals as well as negatively naturalise dominant perceptions of
people that create these informal exclusions in society. Place is contingent of the past and inherits
everything that has happened within it, from struggles to successes, which therefore influence both
the present and future constructions of place, leading to entrenched divisions of exclusion for
marginalised groups that are rigid and extremely difficult to break out of (Harvey, 1996, p.326).
Freedom is expressed through a citizen’s ability to act, think and feel. These three abilities are
cohesively affected by the limitations of an individual’s right to privacy. Surveillance can alter
perceptions of marginalised groups both from other citizens and themselves. For instance, a young
blackmale whoissubjectedtointensesurveillanceof policingwillbe criminalisedinhisidentity,which

Word Count:9998
alters both the media’s and other more dominant citizen’s perceptions of both him and young black
malesingeneral (Feagin,2006).A Muslimmay be identifiedasathreat to civility –a terrorist– due to
intense interrogation from the FBI in a post-9/11 world (Cainkar, 2009). Low-income citizens and
homelesspeoplemaybe identifiedaseitherdrugaddicts,alcoholics,lazyorthievesduetothe methods
of surveillance taken on them to push them out of the public eye (Fitzpatrick and LaGory, 2000). All
these methodsof surveillance impactthese marginalisedgroups’ senseof place astheyare constantly
challenged to prove themselves as ordinary citizens, further diminishing their personal identities
(Anderson, 1990).
This research aims to analyse the different innovations that contemporary surveillance has taken in
order to watch overand scrutinise citizen’severymove forcrime and protectionpurposes.Itwill also
express how such techniques have created an asymmetrical observation of people, and as such, how
certain demographics become marginalised, excluded and discriminated within public spaces,
ultimately affecting their cultural identity and opportunities.
It will alsocontinuewitharelevantliteraturereviewtodraw linksondifferenttheoriesfromexpertsin
surveillance technology, policing and natural surveillance in order to emphasise the geographies of
exclusionformarginalisedgroupsthroughsocialandpolitical discourse.Suchthemesbuiltthe research
questions to critique these ever-dominating perceptions and limitationson marginalisedgroups. The
reportwill alsooutline the logisticsof the researchanddiscussitsfindingsaswell ascompare itto the
relevanttheories.Finally,itshallprovide conclusionsforthe overallresearchtosee how groupsexactly
have been excluded from society.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Most thorough work by experts tend to focus on two different aspects to surveillance studies. They
observe how State-based surveillance is increasing in urban geographies through the use of hard-
technological innovations, andthe roleof policingandinterrogationthatleadstoprofiling. Thissection
will draw in these broad theories of surveillance in urban societies and critique how they limit the
freedom of certain individuals in socioeconomic and political spaces.
2.1: Technological Surveillance
Technological surveillance plays a significantrole in the impact of freedom of citizens and tends to
dominate in modern, urban societies (Lyon, 2001). It also critiques how they limit the freedom of
citizenstoact,thinkandfeel (Lyon,2003;Lessig,1999). There is,however,amixtureof feelingtowards
just how far technological surveillance in the form of information systems (CCTV and dataveillance)
limitsuchfreedomandopportunitiesof citizens,withdifferentviewsonjusthow effective theyare at
actually protecting citizens’ rights.
Lyon (2003) describes the acceleration of social sorting in societies which marginalises those who are
targeted. Gandy (1993) defines this social sorting as “panoptic sort” – the use of discriminatory
technology –where databasesof informationare createdforthe purpose of assessmentandjudgment
of those who are deemed worthy of targeting. However,the use of such information systems is also
recognised as an important factor in protecting the freedom of citizens.Lyon (2003) accentuates the
point that social sorting is to some extent needed due to the increasing prevalence of crimes.

Word Count:9998
Lyon(2001) furtherdescribesthe effectsof digitalsurveillance throughthe conceptof limitingfreedom
subconsciously as well as physically. The mental toll that increased scrutiny on people’s every input
creates a sense of distrust within societies, creating natures of hostility, both physically and verbally,
between citizens (Kraut et al, 2002). Thus, spatial ordering digitally and physically results in citizens
being controlled by surveillance methods even within private spaces.
Gandy’s (1993) concept of panoptic sorting describes how a utopian world is pursuedat the expense
of certain demographics. The experience of ethnic minorities and citizens with low economic capital
within urban societiesis cast by ideals of targeting potential threatsof terrorism and crime (Walters,
2001) which often leave them excluded in public spaces to create a better and safer image of
contemporary society. Spatial ordering is therefore influenced by their geographic location or
opportunities based on religion, ethnicity and income status (Castells, 1989; Castells, 1996).
Some theorists find that the increasing use of body surveillance is not socially or economically
progressive andcreate geographiesof discriminationwithinspaces.Cultural geographytakesinterest
in the surveillance of human bodies which reinforces economic power relations between employers
and employees in regards to healthcare (Braverman, 1980). The disembodiment of human beings
leaves them excluded from the rest of society and are left feeling burdensome on the day-to-day
mobility of employment (Artes and Duby, 1990). As such, they cannot function as efficiently and
sometimes even inflict damage on themselves unknowingly in order to resist the barriers that are
placed in front of them (Curry, 1997).
2.2: Policing and Profiling Surveillance
Policingisthe actionof enforcinglawon citizens.Urbangeographiesare shapedbythe way State law
controls the distribution of citizensand their social status, as well as affecting how citizensreact and
resist to forms of governance (Lyon, 2001; DuBois, 1986; Foucault, 1977). DuBois and Foucault both
explain the role of policing surveillance on the construction of an individual’s sense of place in
geographic spaces. Intense panopticism and awareness of being observed as well as having limited
social rights forces citizens to re-evaluate their own personal identities and leaves specific
demographicstohave lessfreedom of mobility(DuBois,1986;ibid,1977). Social hierarchiesare formed
and entrenchedthrough State-powerreinforcement,andinternal conflicts withinspacesarise froma
feeling of social injustice (Akhtar et al, 2007).
Policing surveillance creates a form of ethnic, gender or religious profiling, and is seen as the most
dominant force in having a chronic effect on citizen’s level of freedom. Ethnic surveillance is sparked
through the construction of the State to be very white-male and protestant/catholic centric,
perpetuating fears that others not like them are “outsiders” (Glover, 2008; Feagin, 2006). Police
profilinghasonlyintensifiedinthe age of modernityaslaw enforcementhasshiftedfrompreventive
strategiestoarisksociety (EricsonandHaggerty1997,p.23; Leiken,2004,p.136), where generalisation
of ethnic or religious groups is used as a means to prevent potential crimes from occurring, and is
advocated by those in higher positions of power as a necessary tool.
Blackmale youthsare oftenfearedincommunities (Anderson,1990),andas such policingregimessee
themcriminalisedwiththeirpersonal spacesbeingintruded uponfrequently(Glover,2008). Muslims
also are subject to intense policing surveillance as the construct of a post-9/11 world has induced
widespread fear across the Western World, particularly North America (Cainkar, 2009; Akram and
Johnson, 2004). Cole (2006) describes how political discourses publicise specific data in order to

Word Count:9998
influence social media that alters public perception of these groups. Urban spaces therefore become
dividedinan“us” and “them”concept as identitiesare placedonthese groupsthatthey bring danger
to civility and as such must be observed intensely by both government and their neighbours
(Cunningham, 2004).
Socioeconomic class plays a significant role in determining the level of surveillance that is enforced
upon them, but some theorists suggest that it is government policies that force the use of police
surveillance methods (Johnston and Shearing, 2003). Enforcing law on these citizens for a “utopian”
world (Gandy, 1993) reinforces power relations between them and more dominant citizens within
urban areas through the generalisation of specific groups.
2.3: Overview
Resistance to policing is subject to the types of surveillance used (Haggerty and Ericson, 2006). Areas
where CCTV do not existexpressextreme levelsof resistance whensuchtechnologiesare introduced
(Cavallaro, 2007) due to the fear of a loss of social rights that a panoptic government creates with
policing(Foucault,1977). The feelingof alossof comforttobe themselvesintheirownpersonalplaces
instils anenhancedfeelingof paranoiatowardsgovernmentality,bothdigitallyandwithingeographic
spaces(VancouverPoliceDepartment,2006).Societiesthereforebecome largelyhostiletowardseach
other, giving government even more validity to increase surveillance to regain control over resisting
individuals of marginalised groups. Their practices generalise these groups much more intensely,
resulting in an even larger infringement of freedom for more people in an ever-growing cycle of
resistance and control (Huey, 2007).
Studiesof urbangeographythereforedescribethiscomplexityof surveillance asadouble-edgedsword:
itbothcreatesprotectionthroughgovernmentcontrolintechnology,policingorlandscape design,but
at the same,in order to achieve optimal protection,one mustsurrenderthemselves tothe control of
government. It is with this complexity that the right balance needs to be created in order to not be
oppressed by surveillance, of which certain marginalised groups feel as though government has
imposed themselves on their own personal level of privacy and freedom. Politicians enforce the idea
that we need more surveillance for protection, while “victims” of surveillance feel like the whole
processof governmentcontrol iscounter-productive. Asa resultof the complexitiesbetweencitizens
and government expressed in the literature, the research question for this project arises: How do
contemporary surveillance systems and methods limit our freedom?
2.4: Research Aims
The aim of the enquiry was to engage with citizens in different areas of London in order to stir
discussion of their opinions towards surveillance and how their sense of freedom, privacy and
protectionhasbeenaffected.Italsolookstosee whichcitizensfeel the mostoppressedbysurveillance
systems, and to find reasons why. Key questions of this research are as follows:
 What are citizens’ perceptions on the level of surveillance in the spaces that they inhabit?
 How are these citizens oppressed by surveillance practices within their urban spaces?
 What is the reaction of citizens to scrutiny from surveillance methods such as CCTV and
policing?
 How does this reaction affect their sense of place, their feeling of inclusion and exclusion in
society, or sense of identity?

Word Count:9998
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Conductingresearchintocitizens’perceptionsandexperienceswithsurveillance requiresasignificant
amountof considerationasitisimportantto recognise thateveryindividual sampledhasexperienced
implications in different ways, or some may feel less comfortable explaining these experiences than
others.Thissectionexplainsthe backgroundresearchthathasbeenconductedwhenchoosingsample
sitesaswell asthe samplingtechniqueswhenchoosing respondents, and the interview procedures.
3.1: Background
Figure 1 Gridded map of London and study sites. (Amin, 2015)

Word Count:9998
Figure 2 London’s ethnic dispersal. (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2013)
Figure 3 Economic deprivation index of London 2005. (Rae, 2010)
The sample site forthe researchmethodologywasLondon(figure 1).Londonwas chosenas the main
site fortestingas it ishome to large cultural diversitywitharange of differentethnicitiesandcultures
dispersedacrossthe city,makingitoneof the mostmulticulturalcitiesintheworld (Chynoweth, 2013).

Word Count:9998
Figure 2 illustrates how ethnic groups are dispersed around London,with most Black or Black British
citizensresidinginSouthern andNorth-easternpartsof London andmostAsiansorAsianBritishpeople
located in West London. The number of White British citizens are distributed mostly around the
suburban areas and central business district region of London. In conjunction to this, the Economic
Deprivation Index (EDI) presented in figure 3 illustrates that the most deprived areas of London are
aroundthe NorthandNorth-easternregionswheremostlyBlackandAsiancitizensreside. Additionally,
as it is the capital of England, it has seen the most rapid expansion of surveillance technologies since
the industrial age with a greater needto protect both its citizens and the economic sector, making it
an ideal geographic region to analyse (Haggerty et al, 2008).
London’srich historyof multiculturalismstemsfromtheirimmigrationpoliciesand inclusionof ethnic
minoritiessince the 1950s.Since the 1980s there hasbeena proliferationof discoursesconcerningthe
general place of minoritieswithinLondonsuchasprogrammesdesignedtofosterequality,institutional
structurescreatedfor bettersocial servicesandresourcesextendedtosuchminoritiesinsectorssuch
as employment and education (Vertovec, 1996).
In a post-nationaleraformanyEuropeancountries,suchasthe UnitedKingdom, theyhave attempted
to create communities of cultures,subcultures and transcultures which are utopian and paternalistic
that aim to be authenticinthe shapingof societies(ModoodandWerbner,1997). However,they and
Vertovec (1996) recognise that in the process of constructing multiculturalism in urban geographies,
minoritieswho enter these communitiesare more often scrutinised and excluded from the rest of
societies (Parnaby and Victoria Reed, 2009). Many public policies and political discourses employill-
defined and poorly planned ideas surrounding multiculturalism and instead separate and distance
minorities from their white counterparts (Newman, 1972). This is evident in figure 2 which shows a
strong trend of the dispersion of Black/Black British and Asian/Asian British citizens. They tendto be
geographically distributed in specific enclaves within London rather than being integrated with each
other.Often, multiculturalismisthe political outcome of powerstrugglesthat are reinforcedthrough
this segregation of minorities, leading to highly contested areas of control between these minorities
and State-law (Fiske, 1998).
Glover (2008) implemented the use of questionnaires to support her research into how a panoptic
world impacted on citizen’s cultural identity and the perceptions that are placed on them by
governmentandtheirneighbouringcounterparts.The qualitative methodsshe chose were successful
inthe supportof heranalysis,andallowedhertodraw relevantcomparisonsandlinkstoherliterature
research,whichthis reportalso seeksto do. As a result,the methodof questionnaireswaschosenso
thatIcouldgaininsightintohoweachindividualisaffectedby surveillance implications. Questionnaires
allowusto observe clearlyhowsurveillance canprovide differentoutcomesfordifferentpeople,even
if they are in the same category of race, gender, age or religion. This then allows us the freedomto
criticallyanalysethereasonsfordifferencesinopinion,suchasgeographiclocation,typeof surveillance
deployed on them, or their social status in urban spaces.
However,the possible drawbacksof usingsuchmethodsisthe possibilitythatrespondentswouldnot
be as transparent as they could be due to questions not allowing for openness(either through being
difficulttoanswerordifficulttounderstand) orthe facttheywere inagroupwithfellow peersanddid
not feel comfortable answeringsuchquestions infrontof them.Milleret al (1983) also definesthese

Word Count:9998
as reasons why qualitative research methods such as questionnaires may not provide sufficient or
reliable analysis.
In order to combat these potential problems, questionnaires were semi-structured with in-depth,
open-ended questions along with extensive conversations with respondents and a wide-range of
literature research. This was conducted to allow for perceptions on self-identity and implications of
surveillance ontheirfreedomtobe exploredin furtherdetail andgainawiderandadvancedknowledge
on the topic. Literature researchpartakenbefore the questionnairesallowedfora strong foundation
of knowledge on the topic that can be brought up in order to dissect respondents’ experiential
knowledge further.Thisallowedforgreaterlibertyovertheiranswersandas such,more comparisons
between individuals can be made.
Four regions of London were chosen to conduct the questionnaires:
 South London (Croydon – Thornton Heath and Mitcham, Lambeth – Streatham and Brixton)
 Central London (Westminster and the City of London)
 North London (Hackney)
 West London (Ealing)
These four regions were chosen due to specific demographic conditions. South London is one of the
most multicultural regions of London (figure 2), particularly the northern region of Croydon, which
hosts the areas of Mitcham, Lambeth and Thornton Heath. Most residents here are working-class
citizens.
Central LondonisLondon’sbusinessdistrict,andisamajor hub forboth the local andglobal economy.
CCTV is prevalent to protect large transnational corporations, whilst the majority of its citizens are
middle- and upper-class white citizens (figure 3). It is important to see how the perceptions of
surveillance from citizens with greater social status differ from those lower down due to their
difference in “experiential knowledge” (DuBois, 1986).
NorthLondon,andparticularlythe Boroughof Hackney,isone of the mostdeprivedregionsof London
(figure 3).Itishome toa large numberof working-classblackand Asianresidents(figure2) whomostly
live in council estates, a typical housing structure of the character of an “inner-city” (Haggerty et al,
2008). ItisbelievedthatHackneywouldgreatlyrepresentthe researchof Vertovec(1996) inthatethnic
minoritiesare segregated from society and clumped into low-income areas, increasing public fears
about “them” and limiting freedom of movement through being entrenched in regions of economic
and social depression (Huey, 2007).
WestLondon isone of the mostaffluentregionsof the city(figure3),andisconsideredalarge suburban
area.It isalsohome toalarge numberof middle-andupper-classAsianresidents.Due tothe economic
difference between Asians in this region compares to South London, it was hoped that distinct
comparisons could be made about their perceptions of surveillance.
Afterthese areaswere surveilled,quantitative researchmethods of researchwere usedtoobservethe
implications of surveillance within various regions of North America, such as Vancouver and various
citieswithinthe USA.The NorthAmericanregionwasselectedinordertocompare the differentlevels
of extremity of oppression that these marginalised groups face with London. Specific theories and
exampleswere selectedfrompeer-reviewedjournalsandapprovedacademicarticlesinordertomake

Word Count:9998
accurate comparisonsviareliable dataandtheoretical sources. Web-datasourcesmustbe checkedto
be reliable and only certain media stations that have credible sources will be included, such as
broadsheet newspapers or the BBC.
3.2: Sampling and Procedures
The main methodof recruitingindividualsforthe questionnairesused proportional sampling.Ineach
region, a sample size of 25 was selected, with individuals being categorised into subpopulations
depending on their ethnic group and selected proportionately:
 Station 1 - South London: 10 Black/Black British respondents, 10 Asian/Asian British
respondents, 5 White British respondents.
 Station2 - Central London:15 White Britishrespondents,5Black/BlackBritishrespondents,5
Asian/Asian British respondents.
 Station 3 - North London: 15 Black/Black British respondents, 5 Asian/Asian British
respondents, 5 White British respondents
 Station4 - West London:10 Asian/AsianBritishrespondents,10 White Britishrespondents,5
Black/Black British respondents.
Respondents were chosen and approached randomlyin public areas, such as at coffee shops, on the
street, cafes, or at libraries. In order to assure them that the questionnaire was purely for academic
purposesandthat theiranswerswouldnotbe misused,aninformationandconsentformwascreated
(Appendix B).Theinformation formdetailedtheexactpurposeof thisresearch,whilstthe consentform
gave themthe opportunitytoacceptor decline the questionnaire,orwithdraw fromthe procedure at
any giventime.It also informedthemthat theiridentities were tobe keptanonymous,buttheirage,
employmentsector,ethnicityandreligion were requested. However,theywere alsogiventhe choice
to leave out any of these personal details should they want to.
The questionnaires were divided into 5 sections: Personal details, CCTV Surveillance, Digital
Surveillance, Body Surveillance, and Policing & Profiling Surveillance. They were designed to have a
mixture of closed and open-endedquestions in order to obtain a wider understanding of different
demographics’ experiential knowledge with the various forms of surveillance. Follow up questions
allow the respondent to go into further detail on a topic. Their answers were recorded on a voice
recorder and then transcribed onto the questionnaire form later on.
Respondents’ answers were coded and analysed thematically like Wiles (2008), which allowed for
results of perceptions towards surveillance to be compared and analysed. One issue that arose was
misunderstandings of certain questions that resulted in time being wasted in order to explain the
question to respondents. This also led to a few answers that gave different answers than intended
(HollwayandJefferson,2004), suchas respondent16who did not fullyunderstandquestion22 of the
questionnaire,whichmade mehave toexplainwhatpoliceprofilingwasinthe contextof the research.
4. TECHNOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE
The literature comments that technological surveillance plays a significant role in how citizens will
interact with each other in public urban spaces due to their awareness of a “panoptic” society
(Foucault,1977).Respondentsfromthequestionnairesalso experiencethe implicationsof panopticism

Word Count:9998
and howthisalterstheirfreedomof movementwithinthe city,theirsenseof place,andthe identities
that are placed on them.
4.1: CCTV Operations
Lyon (2001) describescontemporary societiesas“surveillance societies”:everywhere andeveryone is
constantly being observed, and their every move or action is scrutinised by governments. Since the
1990s, Britainhasseena significantincrease inthe prevalence of CCTV operations inurbanspaces.For
the majorityof citizens,ithasbeenwelcomedasanecessaryformof protection,withwavesof support
for the developmentof CCTV (Haggerty and Ericson,2006) resultinginover 5.9 millionCCTV cameras
operatinginBritain(BritishSecurity IndustryAssociation,2014). Thiswas reciprocatedbythe answers
from respondents in the research.
Figure 4 Number of citizens who feel safer with current intensity of CCTV surveillance.
A total of 72 respondentsstatedthattheyfeltsafer with the level of CCTV that is currentlyoperating
in London (figure 4).However,of these 72, 34 of themwere citizensof White/White Britishorigin, 12
were of Black/BlackBritish originand26 were of Asian/AsianBritish origin.The disproportionatelevel
of supportforCCTV surveillance can be attributedtomanyfactors,mostnotablysocial injusticecreated
by the marginalisationof groups due totheirethnicity(Feagin,2006). Feaginstatesthat identifyingas
a man of colour ultimatelyresultsinlimitingtheircitizenshipandtheirpersonal rights.DuBois(1986)
describes thisremoval of identityasa conceptof “double-consciousness”,wherecitizensare aware of
the limitationsthatare placedon themdue to theirethnicity. He claimsthat citizenswhoexperience
double-consciousness will:
“feel…two-ness…two souls,two thoughts,two unreconciled strivings;two warring idealsin one
dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”
It is here that citizens of colour recognise the importance of status and identity in a racially ordered
world. “Two souls” indicates a distinct separation in citizenship principles associated with citizens of
colour.Theyare disenfranchisedfromtheirfreedomof movementthroughouturbanspacesduetothe
fear of others’ suspicions on their intentions. The “dogged strength” that is displayed just to move
throughthese spacesillustrateshowpower relationsare enforcedbetweenwhite citizensandcitizens
of colour through the use of CCTV.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Black/Black British White/White British Asian/Asian British
Numberofcitizenswhofeelsafe
Ethnicity

Word Count:9998
Of the 12 Black/BlackBritishcitizenswhofeltsaferdue toCCTV surveillance intensity,5of these were
situatedin Central London,3inWest London,and4 inSouthLondon.The fact that nobodyinHackney
suggests that Black/Black British citizens experience some form of injustice through surveillance
methods.DuBois’sdouble-consciousnessconceptisechoedbymanycitizensinHackney,whobelieve
that CCTV surveillance operationshavecriminalisedtheminthe eyesof the publicandof government.
Respondent 53, a 24-year-old Black male who is currently unemployed, stated:
“Why should I feel saferknowing thatif I justwalk down the street, there’s a good chancemy
face is picked up on camera? ...When they [the police] are looking for someone to get, I’m a
suspect,justbecauseof my skin and my location...They gotmy face, they got my address,and
that’senough formeto be on the radar…[They] makeusoutto be thesecriminals justbecause
we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that’s just the world we live in.”
Respondent number 3 clearly expresses DuBois’s concept of double-consciousness in his comments
about being“on the radar”.He is aware that justbeinga black male isenoughfor CCTV operationsto
flag him as a potential target for a crime, even if he is not participating in any criminal activity (Lyon,
2003). Mentioning the significance of CCTV locating his own residence exposes his feeling of a loss of
privacy,where he wouldfeel threatened inhisownhome withthe fear of police knockingonhisdoor
to“get” him. Foucault(1977) definesthiskindof outlookasaconsequenceof apanopticsociety,where
the fearof alwaysbeingwatchedalterspeople’sperceptionsof the spacesin whichtheyinhabit. Being
inthe “wrong placeat the wrong time” evenwhenperformingsimple tasksforhumanneedssuggests
more than just a loss of physical movement through spaces, whilst the emphasis on “we” indicatesa
collective perception of being under constant suspicion (Gandy, 1993).
Since the deathof 2-year-old,Jamie Bulger,in1993, the use of videosurveillance hasbeenadvocated
nationallyaroundBritainasacrime preventionstrategy(Young,1996).Many citizenswere shockedby
the 1993 events which led to political discourse using it as a reason for wider use of surveillance
methods.Asgovernmentsincreasedthe prevalence of videosurveillance,theyalsoclaimedthatitwill
ultimatelybenefitthe stability,safetyandproductionof urban communities,whichiswell reciprocated
by the vast majority of White/White British respondents. Particularly, respondent27, a 25-year-old
white female in the managerial sector, stated:
“I feel safer. It helps me feel safe that someone is always watching, and until people start
stopping mein thestreetand asking to lookin my bag Iwon’tmind…Itstopspeoplecommitting
crime so howcan you complain aboutit?...Ithinkthemajority of peoplewho do havea problem
with it are usually the ones who are actually up to no good.”
Respondent 27 illustrates a stark contrast in opinion than respondent 53, with obvious comparisons
beingdue toherethnicityandemploymentsector.Foucault’s(1977) conceptof experiential knowledge
can clearly be distinguished based on these two contrasting responses to sense of safety. While the
black male oftenfeelsasthoughhe is alwaysundersuspicion,resultinginhislimitationof movement
andprivacy,the white femalefeelsagreatersense of freedominknowingthatshe and the spacesthat
surround her are safe and secure. Respondent 27 dismisses the chance of CCTV unfairly targeting
specific individuals by questioning why anybody would “complain” about surveillance, exposing her
lack of experiential knowledge of the “real world” around her (DuBois, 1986), as seen in respondent
53’s response that this is “the world we live in”. This would explain why whites may comprehend the
implication of targeted law enforcement (Tuch and Weitzer, 1997).

Word Count:9998
Respondent27 expressesthatincreasingsurveillanceintensitypromotesherfull social,economicand
political rights (Cook, 1999). There is a sense of liberation in the ideals of a justice framework of
democratic ideals where citizens are unimpededby State intervention and allowedfreedom to move
throughout urban spaces, yet this sense of equality is not met for ethnic minorities. Feagin (2006)
explained the differences in ideals of justice and liberty between different ethnicities. White citizens
whoexpresstheirsenseof protectionand securityinvokearhetoricof equalityunderthe law toexplain
the justice system that privileges them.
In contrast, citizensof colourprofesssimilardescriptionsof justice,butas a way to demonstrate how
these ideals of citizenship that frame public discourses are not upheld for them in practice. The
dimensionsof limitedcitizenshiptothese subjectsisevident of double-consciousnessoccurringwithin
panopticgovernance,asseeninthecommentsbyrespondent53.Hisrecognitionthathe willbe subject
to the limitationsof hisfreedomasa citizen,whilstconcedingthatthisisjustrealitydisplaysthe great
mental strainhe hasenduredfromtryingtoresistcriminalisedidentitiesbeingplacedonhim(Marshall,
1964).
Literature studies take Britain as the paradigmatic example of CCTV-related developments, yet most
countrieslagbehindintermof the numberandsophisticationof camerasystems.Evenina post-9/11
world,the UnitedStates has not seena comparable installation of videosurveillance systemsandthe
restof the worldlags behindthe UKin the level of suchimplementation(Haggerty andEricson,2006).
Britain has observed an abundance of video surveillance systems in the financial sector of central
London – with over 680 cameras operating for a resident population of just 9000 people (British
SecurityIndustryAssociation,2014) – as citizensbecame sensitisedtothe prospectof publiccameras
in order to prevent crime and acts of terror. Many citizens from areas like North America, however,
feel as though video surveillance only blurs the boundaries betweensecurityand privacy, and in fact
reduces their freedom of privacy and constitutional rights (Cavallaro, 2007).
The case of Vancouver exposes this ubiquitous feeling of an intrusion of privacy. Proposals for CCTV
since 1999 have beenmetwith mixedopinions.The DowntownEastside of Vancouver(DTES) has one
of the lowest economic capital in Canada with the highest unemployment rate, as well as 40% of
residents receiving some form of income assistance (City of Vancouver, 2006). Within the DTES, the
vastmajorityof citizens- particularlyyoungmales- opposetheintroductionof CCTVsurveillance,whilst
the majorityof oldercitizensandownersof the bestlocal businessessupportingit (Huey,2007). This
is comparative to my research, where the majority of respondents who support the current intensity

Word Count:9998
of surveillance being those in higher paid, higher skilled employment sectors with 68% of the
respondents working in managerial, professional, technical or administrative sectors (figure 5).
Figure 5 Number of people who feel safe with current surveillance intensity in comparison to their employment sector.
Though the best local businesses in the DTES were mostly involved in the services sector, the
comparisons with my research show clear similarities – the people withthe highest economic capital
withinurbanspacesfavoursurveillance technologies,mostlikelydue toboththe economicandsocial
rights and protections they would receive over those with lower income status (Cook, 1999). This is
reflectedinrespondent6'scomments,a 27-year-oldblackmale currentlyinthe precision,production,
craft and repair sector:
“I don’tfeel safe,no.Because they already judgepeoplewho aren’tasrich asaverageguy and
they think ‘this guy’smostlikely to rob someone’and so you’rethe first one they look at once
something happens.”
Wise’s(ibid,1976) conceptof a police state ispresented inrespondent6’scommentsthathe wouldbe
the “first one” police look at when a crime occurs, solely because of his economic status. The
psychological strainthatvideosurveillanceplaceson lowerincome citizens isalsoevidentinhowmany
timesa day theyare aware of videosurveillance withinurbanspaces (table 1).It is clearlyvisible ona
global scale that many citizens encompass a heightened sense of vulnerability and believe that
governmentactionisthought to punishthemrather than elevate andliberate themwithinsociety as
they are always regarded as suspicious targets (Ditton et al, 1999).
Respondent 6’s comments are reciprocated by the feelings of the citizens in Vancouver. A low social
and economic capital often leaves people feeling vulnerable and alienated within urban spaces
(Bourdieu, 1986). Vancouver’s DTES poorer residents felt as if the introduction of video surveillance
wouldcreate a“police state”,whichWise(1976) definesasgovernmentintelligence beingused against
itsowncitizens.Thereisaheterogeneousmix of actors,processesandtechnologiesthatoperate inthe
politics of surveillance implementation. Government and media link most poor citizens with crime,
alcohol and drug-related problems that play a vital role in fostering a sense of need for video
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Managerial &
Professional
Technical, Sales &
Administrative
Support
Services Precision,
Production, Craft
& Repair
Operators,
Fabricators &
Laborers
Unemployed
Numberofcitizenswhofeelsafe
Employment Sector Status

Word Count:9998
surveillance, which influences the perceptions that other dominant citizens on these demographics,
echoedinrespondent27’sresponse thatthose whooppose surveillanceare “actually up to no good”.
Table 1 Employment sector and citizen daily awareness of CCTV camera operations in London.
Despite Central London being the most surveilled area, the majorityof citizens in this region contain
jobs in the managerial and professional sector, yet 81.48% of those only take notice of video
surveillance up to 10 times a day. In contrast, 87.5% of unemployed citizens took notice of video
surveillance over 10 times a day. Of the 51 citizens in managerial, professional, technical or
administrativesectors,28were White/WhiteBritishcitizens,19were Asian/AsianBritish,whilstonly 4
were Black/Black British. 5 of the 8 unemployed citizens were Black/Black British whilst 3 were
White/White British. Racial and economic factors subsequently reinforce power relations between
themandaffluentwhitecitizens,scrutinisingeveryactionthose furtherdownthe socialhierarchytake
(Boyle and Haggerty, 2006).
4.2: Digital Surveillance
Lyon (2001) states that surveillance societies exist where surveillance is more than just a feature of
discrete institutional relationships, and becomes routine and generalised across populations.
Disappearing bodies become more common within contemporary societies in conjunction with the
adventof communicationandinformationtechnologies.The growthof pervasive communicationand
informationtechnologieshasledtoa sense of vulnerabilityinphysical,visible spaceswiththe shifting
interactionstoa more digital world(Krautetal,2002), whichgeneratesredoubledeffortsto maintain
visibility of those rapidly vanishing persons. The notion of “private” and “public” spaces therefore
become blurred, with risk of personal information circulating online and being abused or misused by
external bodies.
Asthe age of computerisationexpandsexponentiallyamongst white collarworkers,theyare oftenthe
most vulnerabletothe implicationsof digital surveillance,evenoutside of the workplace,due totheir
dependence on technology for worktime activities (Bauman, 1992). Out of the 51 respondents in
managerial, technical or administrative sectors, 48 respondents expressed that they take more
precautions over what they input online, compared to just 31 out of 49 respondents in lower
employment sectors. Respondent 21, a 48-year-old Asian woman who works in administration
displayed this sense of vulnerability in a digital world:
“I’m more cautiousaboutwhatI post on Facebooknow.I got suspended fromworkbecauseI
vented my frustration abouta colleagueon Facebookdespiteleaving their nameanonymous.I
mean,yeah,I knowyou shouldn’tbedoing that,butthefactthat workpicked up on my status
just shows that there’s no privacy anymore.”
The sociological distinctionbetweenworkplace monitoringandsupervisionof employees hasbecome
significantly more salient. As computerisation expands, freedom of speech is challenged and
Never 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 or above
Managerial & Professional 4 18 4 1 0
Technical, Sales & Administrative Support 1 11 9 3 0
Services 0 5 14 4 1
Precision, Production, Craft & Repair 0 1 4 1 0
Operators, Fabricators & Laborers 0 2 4 2 0
Unemployed 0 0 1 6 1

Word Count:9998
scrutinised. There is an innate desire to control the workforce with a turn to personal control since
technical andbureaucratictypesof control becamelesseffectiveinthe late 20th
century,inanattempt
to create the “perfect” worker and maximise productivity. However, the constant 24/7 process of
surveillance on employees can cause a loss of identity as their personal voices are diminished even
within personal private spaces such as social media,inducing a growing fear of their job security and
immense stress that can also affect productivity in the workplace (Bigo, 1996).
4.3: BodySurveillance
The workplace isalsosubjectto intense surveillance of the body.Bodysurveillance isthe co-optingof
the body itself asa meansof identificationandpredictingbehaviourorconditions(Lyon,2001). Social
sorting is created within workplaces that segregates individuals based on what identities are placed
ontothem,and thuslimitstheiropportunities.Respondent4,a 54-year-oldwhite male inthe services
sector, states:
“You’vealwaysgotto be cautiousoverhow you presentyourhealth when applyingto jobs.My
MS (Multiple Sclerosis) can only take me so far...You might qualify for the job initially as they
need to fill up disabled quotas, butwill still find excusesto get rid of you. My job tried to force
me into early retirement becauseof it, and I’m on sick leave until January.Ican’t afford to do
that though, so now I need to try extra hard to show that I am still fit to work.”
The bodyis directlyscrutinisedandinterrogatedasa providerforsurveillance data.The ownerof the
bodynolongerhascontrol overtheirbodyandas suchtheirownpersonal identitiesare overriddenby
employers (Artes and Duby, 1990). Employees with a background of illnesses are disembodied as
human conscience, memory and sociality is absent when abstracting data; only the physical body is
present. Respondent4 illustrateshow idenititesthatare enforceduponhim limithisopportunitiesin
employment.He isnotdefinedasanautonomous,able-bodiedhumanbeing,andassuch,hisdisability
servesasastigmaof beinglessproductive. He canonlygo “so far”andassuchisexcludedfrombenefits
as his health condition disqualifies him.
Body surveillance represents a merging of surveillance techniques in order to gain information on
employees. In a world of identity politics and risk management, surveillance turns to the body as a
document for identification and as a source of data for prediction (Lyon, 2001). Through mapping
human genes, detailed information may be obtained about biologically determined features of
individuals, which further exacerbates the exclusion that those with previous illnesses may face
(Braverman,1980). It isof great interesttoemployersandinsurance companieswhouse suchdata as
a means of discrimination.
Genetic testing turns the body into a password, with a genetic code, which has significant social and
personal consequences (Brown, 1998). Respondent 12, a 42-year-old white male who is currently
unemployed points out how his health conditions impact on his employment opportunities:
“I had a lung problema couple yearsago and becauseof thatI didn’tget accepted forone job
due to the risk of the problem arising again with the materials I would be working with.”
Working-class citizens tend to be subject to the genetic testing discrimination as they are often the
oneswithworse health conditions, and as such, greater vulnerability to body surveillance (table 2).

Word Count:9998
Table 2 Number of
people within specific
employment sectors whose health conditions have impacted on their employment opportunities.
Often,citizenswithalowereconomiccapital tendto have poorerhealthconditionsdue totheirdiets
and lack of access to healthcare. Particularly in Canada, where First Nations citizens are more
vulnerable from genetic testing in public policy. First Nation groups are considered less healthy,are
subject to higher incarceration rates and have a higher social dependence (Castells, 1989; Castells,
1996).
Employerswishtominimise risksbyusinggeneticscreeningtodetermine susceptibilitytodiseasesor
illnesses, or to check levels of damage from exposure to hazardous materials at work, as seen in
respondent 12’s comments (Curry, 1997). Genetic discrimination for lower-income citizens may
therefore discourage somepeoplefromundergoingtestsfromwhich theycouldbenefit,orleavingout
full informationontheirhealthconditionsinordertoachieve the same employmentopportunities,as
is the case for respondent 4. The two faces of surveillance are clearly visible here. Whilst the same
genetictestmay be the meansof personal benefitbyenablingapersontoseektreatmentforamedical
condition,the “potential”risksof illnessmayultimatelyblockpromotionandretentioninemployment.
5. POLICING AND PROFILING SURVEILLANCE
In the age of modernity, racialisation and criminalisation is still entrenched in the political discourses
of governance.DuBois’s(1986) conceptof “double-consciousness”andFoucault’s(1977) concept of a
“panoptic” world is even more relevant in the process of policing as the unjust targeting of groups
individuals is much more obvious. Implications of such methods of surveillance result in much more
significantoutcomesforthe freedomof marginalisedgroups andthe alterationof publicperceptionof
them, and is echoedinthe literature aswell as the commentsfrom predominantly Black/BlackBritish
and Arab/Muslim citizens.
5.1: Racialisation
DuBois’s(1986) conceptof double-consciousnessexploreshow predominantlyblackcitizensare aware
of theirsocial statusinurban spaces, andhow identitiesplacedonthemwill replace how theyidentify
themselves. The ethnic and social status is used as a determinant factor in decisions to enforce law
against and as such citizens of colour have an identity of criminality placed on them.They are always
undersuspicionto do harm and are oftentargetedwithoutprovocation.Respondent 7,a 21-year-old
blackmale whojustgraduatedfromuniversitypointsouthow citizensof colourare oftensubjectedto
unjust police profiling methods:
“It makesyou feel like the world is really againstyou,you know?Like, you’d justbe out doing
nothing,justchilling, and they’d [the police] come up to you and interrogateyou because you
Managerial & Professional 2
Technical, Sales & Administrative Support 0
Services 2
Precision, Production, Craft & Repair 1
Operators, Fabricators & Laborers 3
Unemployed 1

Word Count:9998
apparently fit a description or you just look like the wrong type of guy…You get stopped for
nothing and you can’t do anything about it.”
The issue of profiling is evidenthere. Social sorting is prevalent in policingmethods where citizensof
colour are often clumped together as a perceived risk to the mobility and security of urban spaces
(Gandy,1993). The paradigmshiftsinpolicingandsocial control fromapunishmentmentalitytoarisk
mentality (Johnston & Shearing, 2003) is reinforced by respondent 4’s comments that targets “fit a
description”andas suchare subject tocriminal identification.Pre-emptiveactioncanoftenleave these
citizens excludedfrom societies due to the constant suspicion that surrounds them. Respondent 4
continues:
“I see all these videos on YouTube of black people citing their rights to officers and they [the
officers] justdon’tcare…They bypassanyrightsthatthesepeopleknowthey havefortheirown
personal gain. I don’t know if they get a joy out of it or something but we aren’t represented
like others.”
Here respondent4illustrates Foucault’spanopticconcept.He feelsapermanentmarkerof criminality
through the policingmethodsthatconstantlytarget citizensof colour and as a resultfeelsvulnerable
and “[un]represented”, thus creatinga collective sense of social limitationsof freedom in a racialized
world.
Table 3 Perception of success of policing in crime prevention depending on ethnicity.
Respondent 4’s awareness of the process of police profiling illustrates how police have shifted from
overtformsof lawenforcementtomore covertformations (Bonilla-Silva,2003) – officerswill“bypass”
the rightsthat citizens of colourare aware theyhave andasa resultcreate significantmentalstrainfor
those marginalisedgroups. A citizen’sattemptsof resistanceare futile asthe automaticfunctioningof
powerisconstantlyreinforcedof the powerrelationshipsthatexistbetweenthemandthe State (ibid,
2003) and is presented in table 3, where the majority of citizens who felt that policing methods had
been marginally successful or unsuccessful were Black/Black British citizens whilst the majority of
White/White British and Asian/Asian British citizens believed the methods were very successful or
successful.
IncontemporaryAmericanspaces,the implicationsof racialprofilingare muchmoreextreme andoften
divide citizens through the categorisation of ethnicity, leading to a more dominant “white” society
(Glover, 2008). The mental strain that profiling can cause for citizensof colour is further accentuated
in young adults (Foucault, 1977), with 1,149 black killings by police in 2014 despite over 100 being
unarmed (BBC, 2015), and black citizens in the age bracket of 15-19 being 21 times more likely to be
killed (Pro Publica, 2014). The experiences of black citizens will often lead to more irrational formsof
resistance through frustration like physical retaliation, subsequently allowing politicians to advocate
Very Successful Successful
Marginally
Successful
Unsuccessful
Black/Black British 9 12 10 4
White/White British 17 16 2 0
Asian/Asian British 11 14 4 1

Word Count:9998
greaterrepressive actionsagainst these groups,definedasanattempttoexpose,disruptandneutralise
possible threats (Cunningham, 2004).
White-dominatedareaswithinthe UK also express negative perceptionsof blackmalesand are often
wary of their movements. Due to the stigma of their skin colour, age, gender, or presentation, black
males have a more difficult time convincingothers of their commitment to civility and law-abiding
behaviour(Anderson,1990).In Dorset,a blackmale is17 timesmore likelytobe stoppedforintrusive
searchesthana white male,withlessthan25% of these searchesresultinginarrest(The Independent,
2015). Similarly, in the US, the omnipresence of racial profiling is clearly visible, with black citizens
making up 13% of the total population, yet account for 31.9% of all police killings (Channel 4, 2015).
The similaritiesbetweenthe USA andthe UKindicate theubiquitouslimitationof socialrightsthatblack
citizens may feel, particularly males, who are regarded as a greater threat than women (Guardian,
2015). The shiftto a “risk” society onlyexacerbatesthe limitationof citizenshipthatblackpeople may
face,andleadstoagreaterpanopticparanoiaforblackmaleswhohavecriminalidentitiesplacedupon
them. As a result, the idea of a dominant “white” society is created by the influence that policing
methodshave on citizens.Citizensof colourare more likelytobe targeted,and thus,dominantwhite
citizens have a negative perception of them (St. John & Heald-Moore, 1995) and see profiling as a
necessarytool topreventcrime (table 3).Citizensof colourare entrenchedatthe bottomof the social
hierarchy by these perceptions and must work exceptionally harder than their white counterparts in
order to gain trust within societies (Anderson, 1990).
5.2: The War on Terror
The implications of policing and profiling have escalated further in a post-9/11 world with greater
political discourse advocating the use of interrogation on citizens with Arab or Muslim backgrounds.
Particularlyinthe US, these citizenshave beensubjectsof watchdogsina panopticworldwhere they
are placedunderamicroscope bytheirnon-Arabornon-Muslimneighbours(Cainkar,2009),following
AttorneyGeneral JohnAshcroft’sdeclarationthatterroristswere hiding “within ourcommunities,just
waiting to attack”(ibid, 2009). Such statementsfromthose in higherpositionsof poweris enoughto
provoke fear amongst citizens and alter their perceptions of their Arab and Arab-Muslim neighbours
(Akram and Johnson, 2004).
It sent a message to the world that Arabs and Muslims in the world should be closely observed and
their seemingly normal activities should be treated with suspicion. The panopticism of police
surveillance has had similar implications on Arabs and Muslims that many black citizens face: power
relations are reinforced with one party looking out for danger whilst the other works exceptionally
harder to demonstrate innocence (ibid, 2009).
In my research I looked to observe the correlations between the USA and the UK in police profiling
implications. Respondent 78, a 34-year-old Asian British male in the services sector, illustrated his
observations of Arab and Muslim mobility in a post-9/11 world:
“I’veseen whatsomepeoplesay.You getpeoplelikeBritain Firstand UKIPand allthosepeoplewho
wantusoutof theircountry,we’rea dangerto them,and theysay allthesenastythingsthatdoesn’t
ever getposted on thenews.You haveto dig deep into twitter and stuff to find it,butit’s there,and
it’s powerful.”

Word Count:9998
He describes the feeling of alienation through the separation of “us” and “them”. They are
reconstitutedaspeoplewhoare notapartof the spacesinwhichtheyinhabit,and are notfullyeligible
for civil and constitutional rights. Asians and Muslims may feel socially excluded in contemporary
societies as a result of media influence (National Commission, 2004). Those who make extremist
commentsare not scrutinisedpublically,andas such have a freedomto continue to discriminateand
marginalise Arab or Muslim citizens. His experience of double consciousness is clear in his awareness
of the influence of social media in influencing public perceptions.
The influence that social media has on the perceptions of non-Asian and non-Muslim residents is
identified in the comments of respondent 72, a 23-year-old white male in the laborers sector, who
stated:
“Well people are definitely more aware and cautious now. That’s not to say all of them are
terrorists or anything, but the majority of these kind of attacks happen from those kind of
people, so you never know when you might be in a position of danger, especially if you see
someone acting a bit suspicious… [which could be] how they dress or if they’re whispering to
people or acting shifty when you look at them.”
Respondent 72’s comments support this generalisation, as he is aware of the pre-conceived notions
that non-Muslimandnon-Arabcitizenshave onthese groupsasthe introductionof ethnicorreligious
minority strangers into a predominantly white community evokes more fear than white strangers
(Sacks, 1972). The prevalence of a risk society reaches further than law enforcement and is now
embeddedinWestern-worldcitizens’ignorantmindswhodonothave aclearunderstandingof Islamic
faith or Middle Eastern culture (Said, 1997).
He identifies “how they dress” as a categorisation for the sense of vulnerability that citizens may feel
around Muslims or Arabs, which further supports Said’s claims that white citizens will often observe
behaviours that appear to be “undesirable”. They employ an incongruity procedure whereby the
desirabilityof others,theirbelonging,orpotentiallymaliciousintentismeasuredbysubtle behavioural
and appearance-basedcuesratherthanobvioussignsof criminal conduct.Some people are therefore
deemedmore suspiciousthanothersdue to the majorityof non-Araband non-Muslimcitizens’ roots
in the socially constructed nature of crime and offenders in popular discourse (Akhtar et al, 2007;
Parnaby, 2006), and limits their sense of belonging in supposedly multicultural societies.
Thistakes onGlover’s(2008) conceptof a “white” societyfurtherwiththe inclusion of Protestantand
Catholiccommunities whoare valuedhigherthanIslamiccommunities,predominantlyinthe Western
world.Thiswasobserved inthe wake of the Paris2015 attackswhere RupertMurdochclaimedthatall
Muslims “should beheld responsible”and“apologise”(Guardian,2015). The generalisationof Muslims
presentsthe significantsocial exclusionstheyface andjust how mediaand governmentperceptionof
them removes their personal identities due to a small number of extreme events, whilst there is
significant discourse of opposition to apologise for the impact that ancestral white actions had on
marginalised groups through slavery (Cunningham, 2008).
Post-9/11, the US governments’ calls for greater observation on Arab- and Muslim-Americans for
suspicious behaviour has proven to discriminate these citizens significantly. Leiken (2004, p.136)
describes their actions as “trimming the haystack” to find the needle that “resists discovery”. The
policing methods of a risk society once more crops up in order to find the possible terrorists, which

Word Count:9998
includes mass arrests, preventive detentions, FBI interviews, registration and fingerprinting, wire-
tappingand reviewsof private internet,telecommunicationsandfinancial records,andwere directed
almost solely against persons of Arab ethnicity or Muslim faith (Cole and Dempsey, 2006, p.17).
Such political discourses suggested that ethnic and religious profiling is acceptable and necessary as
longas itisdirectedatthese groups(Cainkar,2009).Asa result,these groups’mobilityinurbanspaces
are onlyfurtherlimited due to the ubiquitousfearof themin cohabitingspaces. 80,000 citizenswere
detained or interrogated, yet no-one was convicted (Cole and Dempsey, 2006), indicating that
unrestricted power of arrests was made on presumptions of suspicion, grounded in the notion that
citizens of Islamic faith or Arab origins could not be trusted.
In contrast,no Asian/AsianBritishrespondentshadexperiencedanyformof police profiling,yetwere
aware of the issue on a national and international level.Therefore,it is clear just how much more
significant racial profiling is in the USA compared to the UK. Basing warrants for arrests on
predominantly assumptionshas only exacerbated the limitations of identity, mobility and citizenship
that these citizens face in society despite government allegations of terrorism within these
communitiesneverbeingprovencorrect,particularlyinthe USA due to the highersensitivitytowards
terrorism in a post-9/11 world. (Cainkar, 2004).
6. CONCLUSION
A citizen’ssenseof place isaffectedbythe social andpolitical constructs of space,forminghierarchies
of citizenship that are based on their ethnic, religious, gender or economic status. This research
illustrates citizen’s constructions of their sense of place in discourses about the different types of
limitations they face that impinge on their freedom of identity, mobility and citizenship.
Constructs of intensifyingsurveillance systemsmakescertaingroupsfeel asif there isanintrusionupon
their private spaces. The implications of a panoptic world exacerbate these groups’ vulnerability to
exclusion as their every move is scrutinised in order to find suspicious acts of malicious or criminal
intent. As individualsbecome paranoid at the risk of being subject to law enforcement, theybecome
marginalised within societies, having false identities placed upon them.
The panopticism of urban spaces also leads to the generalisation of these groups that further
diminishes their sense of freedom. Those with lower socioeconomic status are oftenstripped of self-
identityandfinditmoredifficulttomoveupthe social hierarchy.EricsonandHaggerty’s(1997) concept
of political discourses shifting urban spaces towards a “risk society” discusses how groups of ethnic
minoritiesare oftengeneralisedandhave criminal orsuspiciousidentitiesplaceduponthem, whichis
echoed in the comments by the majority of respondents who felt more vulnerable by surveillance
intensity.The implicationsof apanopticworldalsoexacerbategeneralisedperceptionstothese groups
by their more dominant peers, leading to immense psychological and cultural strains that can cause
irrational forms of resistance against the identities placed upon them.
As the line between public and private spaces are therefore blurred in contemporary societies, it is
important to observe how freedom is limited by surveillance in some way. DuBois’ (1986) and
Foucault’s (1977) concepts of double consciousness and panopticism are still very much significantin
today’s societies, and increasing the intensity of such surveillance methods will only further exclude
ethnic, religiousand economic minority citizens from societies.In parallel with these concepts, the

Word Count:9998
constructs of a “white society” that Glover (2008) describes in the western world has only further
expandedinthe age of modernitydespite global effortstoreduce social inequalityandliberate those
who were previouslyoppressed. Therefore, labellingcitizensaspotential threatsto civility due tothe
categorisation of their personal attributes can be seen to be counterproductive to the protection of
freedom.

Word Count:9998
References
Akhtar,S.; Awad,G.; Brenner,I.;Fonagy,P.;Gilligan,J.;Hamer,F.;Ramzy,N.(2007)
Psychoanalysisand theprevention of prejudice. JasonAronson,Incorporated.
Akram,S.; Johnson,K.R.(2004) Race and civil rightspre-September2001: The targetingof
Arabsand Muslims.CitedinHagopian,E.C(2004) Civil rights in peril: The targeting of Arabs
and Muslims.London,Michigan:PlutoPress.
Amin,K. (2015) Unlocking London’spotentialhousing problem.Whatmorecan wedo?
https://www.pocketliving.com/blog/pocket-general/unlocking-londons-housing-potential-
what-more-can-we-do/.Accessed:30/11/2015.
Anderson,E.(1990) Streetwise:Race, class,and changein an urban community.Chicago:
Universityof ChicagoPress.
Artes,P.;Duby,G. (1990) A history of private life. Cambridge,M.A:Harvard UniversityPress.
Bauman,Z. (1992) Intimationsof postmodernity. London:Routledge.
BBC News,(2015) Why do USpolice keep killing unarmed blackmen?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32740523. Accessed06/11/2015.
Bigo,D. (1996) L’archipel despolices. LeMondeDiplomatique,9th
October
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1996/10/BIGO/5825 Accessed:07/12/2015.
Bonilla-Silva,E.(2003) Racism withoutracists:Color-blindracismandthe persistence of racial
inequalityinthe UnitedStates.Lanham, M.D:Rowman& LittlefieldPublishers.
Boyle,P.;Haggerty,K.D.(2006) Spectacularsecurity:Mega eventsand the security complex.
Unpublishedmanuscript.
Braverman,H. (1980) Labourand monopoly capital. New York:MonthlyReview Press.
BritishSecurityIndustryAssociation(2014) Onesurveillance camera forevery 11 peoplein
Britain says CCTV survey http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-
surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.htmlAccessed:
05/11/2015.
Brown,S. (1998) What’sthe matter,girls?CCTV and genderingof publicsafety.Citedin
Norris,C.;Moran, J.; Armstrong,G. (Eds.) Surveillance,Closed circuit television and social
control. Aldershot:Ashgate.
Cainkar,L. (2004). The impactof the September11 attacksand their aftermath on Arab and
Muslimcommunitiesin the United States. GSC Quarterly,13. Retrievedfromhttp://
www.ssrc.org/programs/gsc/publications/quarterly13/cainkar.pdf.
Cainkar,L. (2009) Homeland insecurity:The Arab American and MuslimAmerican experience
after9/11. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
Castells,M.(1989) The informationalcity:Information technology,economicrestructuring,
and the urban-regionalprocess. Oxford:Blackwell.

Word Count:9998
Castells,M.(1996) The rise of thenetworksociety. Oxford:Blackwell.
Cavallaro,A.(2007) PrivacyinVideoSurveillance. IEEESignalProcessing Magazine,24: (2) pp.
166-168.
Channel 4,(2015) Fact check: how many blackAmericansarekilled by police?
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police/19423.
Accessed:06/11/2015.
Chynoweth,C.(2013) Gettingtoknow multicultural London.The Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/postcard/article3757989.ece.Accessed:27/11/2015.
Cole,D.;Dempsey,J.X.(2006) Terrorismand the Constitution:Sacrificing civil liberties in the
nameof nationalsecurity. The New Press.
Cook,D. (1999) Racism,citizenshipandexclusion.Citedin:Cook,D.;Hudson,B.(Eds.) Racism
and criminology (pp.136-157). London:Sage Publications.
Cresswell,T.(2004), Place: A ShortIntroduction. Blackwell Publishing,Malden.
Cunningham,D.(2004) There’s something happeninghere:Thenew left,the klan,and the
FBI’ssecret war againstthedissentin the United States. Boston:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Cunningham,M.(2008) “It wasn’tus andwe didn’tbenefit”:The discourseof oppositionto
an apologybyBritaininits role inthe slave trade. The Political Quarterly, 79: (2) pp.252-259.
Curry,M.R. (1997) The digital individualandthe private realm. Annalsof theAssociation of
American Geographers, 87(4):681.
Ditton,J.;Short,E.; Phillips,S.;Norris,C.;Armstrong,G.(1999) The effect of closed-circuit
television on recorded crime ratesand public concern aboutcrime in Glasgow. Edinburgh,
StationeryOffice.
DuBois,W.E.M. (1986) Writings: Thesuppression of theslavetrade; thesouls of blackfolks;
Duskof dawn;Essaysand articles. New York,LiteraryClassicsof the United States-Libraryof
America.
Duport,B. (2008) Hacking the Panopticon:Distributedonlinesurveillance andresistance.
CitedinDeflem,M.(2008) Sociology of crime,law and deviance,Volume10: Surveillanceand
governance, pp.257-278. EmeraldGroup Publishing,Ltd:Universityof SouthCarolina.
Ericson,R.V.;Haggerty,D. (1997) Policing therisk society. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Fitzpatrick,K.;LaGory,M. (2000) Unhealthy places:Theecology of risk in the urban landscape.
NewYork:Routledge.
Foucault,M. (1977) Discipline and punish:Thebirth of the prison.New York:RandomHouse.
Gandy,Oscar H., Jr. (1993) The panopticsort:A political economy of personalinformation.
Critical studiesin communication and culturalindustries. BoulderCO:Westview.

Word Count:9998
Glover,K.(2008) Citizenship,hyper-surveillance,anddouble-consciousness:Racial profilingas
panopticgovernance.CitedinDeflem,M.(2008) Sociology of crime, law and deviance,
Volume10: Surveillanceand governance, pp.241-257. EmeraldGroup Publishing,Ltd:
Universityof SouthCarolina.
Guardian(2015) Murdoch says Muslimsshouldbe heldresponsibleforFrance terrorattacks.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/rupert-murdoch-muslims-must-be-held-
responsible-for-france-terror-attacks.Accessed:15/12/2015.
Feagin,J.R.(2006) Systemic racism:A theory of oppression. Routledge:New York.
Fiske,S.T.(1998). Stereotyping,prejudice,anddiscrimination.CitedinGilbert,D.T.;Fiske,
S.T.; Lindzey,G.(Eds.), TheHandbookof SocialPsychology 4:(2) pp.357–411. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Haggerty,K.D.;Ericson,R.V.(Eds.) The new politics of surveillanceand visibility. Toronto:
Universityof TorontoPress.
Haggerty,K.D.;Huey,L.; Ericson,V.R.(2008) The politicsof sight/site:Locatingcamerasin
Vancouver’spublicspaces.Citedin Deflem, M.(2008) Sociology of crime, law and deviance,
Volume10: Surveillanceand Governance,pp.35-55. EmeraldGroup Publishing,Ltd:
Universityof SouthCarolina.
Harvey,D. (1996), Justice,Natureand theGeography of Difference.Blackwell,Cambridge,pp.
291-326.
Hollway,W.;Jefferson,T.(2005) Doing qualitativeresearch differently:freeassociation,
narrativeand the interviewmethod. Sage Publications,London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi.
Huey,L. (2007) Negotiating demands:Thepolitics of skid row policing in Edinburgh,San
Francisco and Vancouver. Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress.
Johnston, L.;Shearing,C.(2003) Governing security:Explorationsin policing and justice.
London:Routledge.
Kraut,R.E.; Gergle,D.;Fussell,S.R.(2002) The useof visualinformation in shared visual
spaces:Informing thedevelopmentof virtualcopresence. HumanComputerInteraction
Institute,CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh.
Lessig,L.(1999) Codeand other lawsof cyberspace. New York:Basic Books.
Leiken,R.S.(2004) Europe’simmigrationproblem,andours.Mediterranean Quarterly,14:(4)
pp.203-218.
LSHTM CommunicationsTeam, LondonSchool of Hygiene&Tropical Medicine,(2013)
http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2013/12/10/mapping-londons-population-by-ethnic-group/.
Lyon,D. (2001) surveillancesociety:Monitoringeverydaylife. TheInformation Society:An
InternationalJournal,19:(4) pp.335-336.

Word Count:9998
Lyon,D. (2003) Surveillance associal sorting:Privacy,risk and digital discrimination. London
and NewYork:Routledge.
Lyon,D. (2007) Surveillance Studies:An Overview. PolityPress,Cambridge.
Marshall,T.H. (1964) Class,citizenship,and social development:Essays. GardenCity,NY:
Doubleday.
Massey,D. (1994) Space,place and gender.PolityPress,Cambridge.
Miller,L.C.;Berg,J.H.;Archer,R.L.; (1983) Openers:Individualswhoelicitintimate self-
disclosure. Journalof Personality and SocialPsychology,44,pp. 1234-1244.
Modood,T.; Werbner,P.(1997) The politics of multiculturalismin the New Europe:Racism,
identity and community. Palgrave Macmillan.
Parnaby,P.F.(2006) Crime preventionthroughenvironmental design:Discoursesof risk,
social control,andneo-liberal context. Canadian Journalof Criminology and CriminalJustice,
48: (1) pp.1-30.
Parnaby,P.F.;VictoriaReed,C.(2009) Natural surveillance,crime prevention,andthe effects
of beingseen.CitedinHier,S.P.;Greenberg,J.(2009) Surveillance:Power,problems,and
politics (pp.87-100) UBC Press, Vancouver:Toronto.
Posner,R.A. (2005) Preventing surpriseattacks:Intelligencereformin the wakeof 9/11. The
HooverInstitution,Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers, Inc.
Pro Publica(2014) Deadly force in black and white.
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white.Accessed06/11/2015.
Rae,A. (2010) Underthe radar: EconomicDeprivationLondon
http://www.undertheraedar.com/2010/08/economic-deprivation-in-london.html.Accessed:
30/11/2015.
Sacks,H. (1972) Noteson police assessmentof moral character.CitedinSudnow,D.(1972)
Studiesin social interaction,pp. 280-293. New York:Free Press.
Said,E.W. (1997) Converting Islam:How media and expertsdeterminehow we see therest of
the world. London:Vintage.
St. John,C.;Heald-Moore,T. (1995) Fearof blackstrangers.Social science research,24: (2)
262-280.
Tuch, S.A.;Weitzer,R.(1997) Trends:Racial differencesinattitudestowardsthe police. Public
Opinion Quarterly, (1) pp. 642-663.
US 9/11 National CommissionReport(2004) http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/.
VancouverPolice Department(2006) Closed circuit television projectpowerpoint
presentation. Vancouver:Planningandresearchsection.

Word Count:9998
Vertovec,S.(1996) Multiculturalism,culturalismandpublicincorporation. Ethnicand Racial
Studies, 19: (1) pp. 49-69.
Wiles,J.(2008) Sense of home intransnational social space:New ZealandersinLondon”.
Global Networks8.
Wise, D.(1976) The American police state:The governmentagainstthepeople. New York:
RandomHouse.
Young,A. (1996) The Bulgercase and the trauma of the visible.CitedinYoung,A.(1996)
Imagining Crime,pp.111-145. Sage Publications.

Word Count:9998
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Programme Form 1

Word Count:9998

Word Count:9998
Ethics Form

Word Count:9998

Word Count:9998
Risk Assessment Form

Word Count:9998

Word Count:9998
Project Progress Form 2

Word Count:9998

Word Count:9998
Appendix B
Information and Consent Form
Participant Information Sheet
Study Title: “How do contemporary surveillance systems impact on our freedom?”
Researcher: Nicolas Chimonides . Ethics number: 15704
Please read this information carefully before deciding to take part in this research. If you are happy to
participate you will be asked to tick the consent option below.
What is the research about?
I am Nicolas Chimonides, a third year student studying at University of Southampton, UK. This
study is part of my undergraduate degree dissertation. This study focuses on the impacts that
modern day surveillance has on citizen’s freedom in their everyday lives.
Why have I been chosen?
The study focuses on members of the general public over the age of 18. As a member of the
general public, your voluntary participation and responses to the questionnaire in this study
will be highly valuable as it will help with collecting the necessary data for this study.
What will happen to me if I take part?
This study uses a short questionnaire. Your responses will be anonymous: you are not asked
to provide your name, but gender, ethnicity, religion and employment sector status is
requested. You can choose to decline giving any of this information, or withdraw from the
questionnaire at any time. It should take around 10 minutes for you to answer the
questionnaire.
Are there any benefits in my taking part?
You might not get any benefit for participating in this study personally. This study could be
used purely as a medium for you to express your opinions regarding the topic.
Are there any risks involved?
There are no anticipated risks involved when you participate in this study. This research study
has been approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of Southampton.
The data will only be used for academic purposes. Only the researcher has the access to the
survey and all information will be treated as confidential.

Word Count:9998
All data will be kept secure on a laptop which will be protected by a password. No one will be
able to access the data except for the researcher. The data obtained from this study will not
be passed to the third party.
Will my participation be confidential?
The data will only be used for academic purposes. The responses will be completely anonymous
as participants will not be to provide any identifying information. All information will be treated
as confidential and participants will not be identified through their responses. The researcher
will not be able to trace you through your responses.
What happens if I change my mind?
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. If participants change their mind they are
under no obligation to hand in their completed questionnaire, and are allowed to skip any
individual questions if they wish to.
What happens if something goes wrong?
If the participant has any concern or complaint about this study, they may contact the Head of
Research Governance:
Email - rgoinfo@soton.ac.uk
Telephone - 02380 595058
Where can I get more information?
If the participants have any question about this study, they may contact the researcher via
email at nc2g13@soton.ac.uk, or the supervisor Dr. James Dyke at j.dyke@soton.ac.uk.
If you agree to be a participant in this questionnaire,please tickthe box belowand continue to
the questionsheetonthe nextpage.
I accept thepurposeof the study and agreeto participate in a questionnaire.

Word Count:9998
[Date:…/…/…. / VersionNo….]
Questionnaire
Question Sheet
Your responses will be strictly confidential and will be used only for academic purposes.
Section 1: Personal
1. Gender:
Male Female
2. Age:
18-20 years old 21-30 years old
31-40 years old 41-50 years old
51-60 years old 61+ years old
3. Ethnicity:
White/White British Black/Black British Asian/Asian British
4. Religion
Christian

Word Count:9998
Catholic
Hindu
Muslim
Buddhist
Atheist
Agnostic Other (Please State)
5. Employment Sector Status
Managerial & Professional
Technical, Sales & Administrative Support
Services
Precision, Production, Craft & Repair
Operators,Fabricators & Laborers
Farming, Forestry & Fishing
Unemployed
6. Are you an inhabitant ofLondon?
Yes No
7. If yes, howlong have you lived in London for?
<1 year 2-5 years 6-9 years
10-14 years 15-19 years 20+ years
8. If yes, which area ofLondon do you live in?
North Northwest South Southwest

Word Count:9998
West Southeast East Northeast
9. Howoften do you pass through the City ofLondon?
Never Once a day Once a week Once a month
Once every 3 months Once every 6 months Once a year
Section 2: CCTV Surveillance
10. Whenever you come to the city, on average, howmany times a day do you notice CCTV
surveillance cameras?
Never 1-5 times 5-10 times 10-15 times 15+ times
11. Do you feel safer, or think that members ofthe general public feel safer, with the level of
CCTVthat is currently in operation?
Yes No Neutral
12. Please state why?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
13. Howsuccessful do you think CCTVhas been at tackling criminal activity?
Very successful Successful Marginally successful Unsuccessful
Section 3: Digital Surveillance
14. Do you feel safe when your personal details and search queries are imputed into online
systems and computers?
Yes No Neutral
15. Do you take any extra precautions to ensure your rights ofprivacy are upheld when using the
internet?
Yes No

Word Count:9998
16. Ifyes, what are these extra precautions?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Body Surveillance
17. Have you ever experienced any health checks when applying for jobs?
Yes No
18. Have these health checks ever affected your employment opportunities in any way?
Yes No
19. Ifyes, howso?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Section 5: Policing & Profiling Surveillance
20. Howsuccessful do you think policing methods ofcatching criminals and preventing crime has
been?
Very successful Successful Marginally successful Unsuccessful
21. Do you feel as though you have ever experienced any form of police profiling?
Yes No
22. Ifyou have experienced any form ofprofiling, either by police or by your pee rs, howdid it
make you feel and does this affect howyou act within London?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Word Count:9998
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
23. Do you feel that profiling by State law enforcement has influenced public perception on you
or those profiled in any way?
Yes No Neutral
24. Please state how?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
End of questionnaire

Word Count:9998
[Date:…/…/…. / VersionNo…..]

Word Count:9997
Ethics Number: 15704 P a g e | 51

Dissertation

More Related Content

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation