Cited by 294Cultural Studies and PostmodernismPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Digitizing Surveillance: Categorization, Space, Inequality

Open access
Graham, Stephen, Wood, David·2003·Critical Social Policy

Abstract

In this article, we seek to add to current debates about surveillance and society by critically exploring the social implications of a new and emerging raft of surveillance practices: those that specifically surround digital techniques and technologies. The article has four parts. In the first, we outline the nature of digital surveillance and consider how it differs from other forms of surveillance. The second part of the article explores the interconnections between digital techniques and the changing political economies of cities and urban societies. Here we explore the essential ambivalence of digital surveillance within the context of wider trends towards privatization, liberalization and social polarization. The third part provides some insights into particular aspects of digital surveillance through three examples: algorithmic video surveillance (in which closed circuit television systems are linked to software for the recognition of movement or identity); the increasingly prevalent practices of digital prioritization in transport and communications; and the medical surveillance of populations, wherein databases are created for increasingly mixed state and commercial medical purposes. Following this, in part four, we reflect on the policy and research implications raised by the spread of digital surveillance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0261018303023002006

Cites

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?

  • When personal data are algorithmically processed to predict future behaviours and events, the people represented by the data are subjected to the material effects of discriminatory or inaccurate classification.

    “When personal data are algorithmically processed to predict future behaviours and events, the people represented by the data are therefore subjected to the material effects of discriminatory or inaccurate classification (Graham and Wood 2003;Lyon 2003b).”

    From Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism (2017) · cites this paper as Graham and Wood 2003

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 294

Authors
Graham, S., & Wood, D.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Venue
Critical Social Policy
Published
2003-05
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
227-248
ISSN
  • 0261-0183 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-703X
OpenAlex
W2102395943
Cited by
294
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
FWCI
40.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Social Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
digital surveillance, closed-circuit television, face recognition, urban political economy, privatization, social inequality, medical surveillance, health databases, social polarization, surveillance policy

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