Cited by 410Ethics and Social Impacts of AITerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceCultural Studies and Postmodernism

Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror

Open access
Amoore, Louise·2009·Antipode

Abstract

Technologies that deploy algorithmic calculation are becoming ubiquitous to the homeland securitization of the war on terror. From the surveillance networks of the city subway to the biometric identifiers of new forms of border control, the possibility to identify “association rules” between people, places, objects and events has brought the logic of pre‐emption into the most mundane and prosaic spaces. Yet, it is not the case that the turn to algorithmic calculation simplymilitarizessociety, nor even that we are witnessing strictly acommercializationof security. Rather, algorithmic war is one form of Foucault's sense of a “continuation of war by other means”, where the war‐like architectures of self/other, here/there, safe/risky, normal/suspicious are played out in the politics of daily life. This paper explores the situated interplay of algorithmic practices across commercial, security, and military spheres, revealing the violent geographies that are concealed in the glossy techno‐science of algorithmic calculation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00655.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Big data algorithms and data mining are fundamentally about discrimination; their purpose is to separate society into groups through identifying patterns of difference and sameness (norms and deviations) in vast datasets through data reduction and categorization.

    “Big data algorithms and data mining are fundamentally about discrimination (see Barocas 2014); their purpose is to separate society into groups through identifying patterns of difference and sameness-or norms and deviations from them (Amoore 2009)-in vast datasets through processes of data reduction and categorization.”

    From Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism (2017) · cites this paper as Amoore 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amoore, L.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Amoore, Louise
Venue
Antipode
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
49-69
ISSN
  • 0066-4812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8330
OpenAlex
W2014717813
Cited by
410
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 8
FWCI
27.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Antipode (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Edinburgh
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
Keywords
war on terror, homeland security, surveillance, militarization, Michel Foucault, everyday life, self-other boundary, association rule mining

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review