The History, Means, and Effects of Structural Surveillance

The focus on the technology of surveillance, while important, has had the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the study of surveillance generally, and tends to minimize the exploration of other, less technical means of surveillance that are both ubiquitous and self-reinforcing—what I refer to as structural surveillance— and their effects on marginalized and disenfranchised populations. This Article proposes a theoretical framework for the study of structural surveillance which will act as a foundation for follow-on research in its effects on political participation

An Electromyographic and Video Motion Analysis Study of the Drawback and Hold Phases of a Compound Bow versus a Traditional Bow in Experienced Archers

Background/Purpose: Archery is quickly becoming an increasingly popular sport, with limited research in the training and rehabilitation of archers. The purpose of this study is to identify the major muscles and timing of recruitment during the drawback and hold of a bow, and to determine the presence of differences in this recruitment between a compound and traditional bow. Subjects/Methods: Seven males between the ages of 36 to 51 years of age completed 6 drawbacks each with a compound bow and a traditional bow. Surface electrodes on the subjects and reflective markers on the bow were used to analyze electromyographic activity of 12 muscles and calculate bowstring angles during the drawback and hold phases of shooting a bow. The following muscles were analyzed: l)right posterior deltoid, 2)right middle deltoid, 3)right teres major, 4)right triceps brachii, 5)right biceps brachii, 6)right brachioradialis, 7)left middle trapezius, 8)right middle trapezius, 9)left middle deltoid, IO)left posterior deltoid, 11 )left triceps brachii, and the 12)left brachioradialis. A descriptive analysis was then performed comparing the two bows. Results: 1) The compound bow requires the greatest muscle activity during the middle of the drawing phase. 2) The traditional bow requires the greatest muscle activity following the point of full draw. Conclusion: Most muscles demonstrated a considerable distinction between the two bows. Decreased muscle activity was generated following let-off to full draw in the compound bow when comparing it to a traditional bow. The traditional bow required heightened activity during full draw

Furtive Encryption: Power, Trusts, and the Constitutional Cost of Collective Surveillance

Recent revelations of heretofore secret U.S. government surveillance programs have sparked national conversations about their constitutionality and the delicate balance between security and civil liberties in a constitutional democracy. Among the revealed policies asserted by the National Security Agency (NSA) is a provision found in the “minimization procedures” required under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This provision allows the NSA to collect and keep indefinitely any encrypted information collected from domestic communications—including the communications of U.S. citizens. That is, according to the U.S. government, the mere fact that a U.S. citizen has encrypted her electronic communications is enough to give the NSA the right to store that data until it is able to decrypt or decode it. Through this provision, the NSA is automatically treating all electronic communications from U.S. citizens that are hidden or obscured through encryption—for whatever reason—as suspicious, a direct descendant of the “nothing-to-hide” family of privacy minimization arguments. The ubiquity of electronic communication in the United States and elsewhere has led to the widespread use of encryption, the vast majority of it for innocuous purposes. This Article argues that the mere encryption by individuals of their electronic communications is not alone a basis for individualized suspicion. Moreover, this Article asserts that the NSA’s policy amounts to a suspicionless search and seizure. This program is therefore in direct conflict with the fundamental principles underlying the Fourth Amendment, specifically the protection of individuals from unwarranted government power and the establishment of the reciprocal trust between citizen and government that is necessary for a healthy democracy

\u3ci\u3eLaird v. Tatum\u3c/i\u3e and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases

Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements

\u3ci\u3eLaird v. Tatum\u3c/i\u3e and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases

Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements

The State of Surveillance Law (with transcript)

Jeffrey Vagle and Marcy Wheeler examine the the intricacies of U.S. surveillance law and the implications for civil liberties and national security