The Evolution of New Technologies of Surveillance in Children’s Services in England

Chapter
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 20)

Abstract

Within sociology and criminology, complex debates are, therefore, now taking place which examine whether surveillance is centralized, in the Orwellian sense, or whether the growth of surveillance systems is more dispersed, decentralized, and ‘rhizomatic’, more ‘like a creeping plant than a centrally controlled trunk with spreading branches’ (Lyon 2001a, p. 4). However, the idea that surveillance is now diffusing into society at large and is no longer so dominated by the state apparatus is somewhat contentious.

Abbreviations

ACPO

Association of Chief Police Officers

CAF

Common Assessment Form

CCTV

Closed Circuit Television

CPd

ContactPoint

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

EM

Electronic Monitoring

GPS

Global Positioning System

ICO

Information Commissioner’s Office

ICT

Information and Communications Technologies

JCHR

Joint Committee on Human Rights

MORI

Ipsos MORI’s Social Research Institute

RFID

Radio Frequency Identification

References

  1. 333,000 users to have access to database of english children (2007) The Guardian, 18 June, p 12Google Scholar
  2. Adorno TW (2003) Can one live after auschwitz: a philosophical reader. Stanford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson R et al (2009) Database state. Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. BAAF (British Association for Fostering and Adoption) (2004) Information, referral and tracking—the professional basis for informed judgement: extract from BAAF’s response to every child matters. BAAF, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckett C (2003) The language of siege: military metaphors in the spoken language of social work. Br J Soc Work 33(5):625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigo D (2006) Security, exception, ban and surveillance. In: Lyon D (ed) Theorizing surveillance. Willan, Devon, pp 46–69Google Scholar
  7. Bisman C (2008) Professional confidentiality revisited: personal information and the professional relationship. In: Clark C, McGhee J (eds) Private and confidential? handling personal information in social and health services. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  8. Boyne R (2000) Post-panopticism. Econom Soc 29(2):285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvel J (2004) All eyes on the child. The guardian society, children’s services supplement, 19 May, pp 2–3Google Scholar
  10. Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2003) Every child matters. HMSO, Cm 5860, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark C, McGhee J (eds) (2008) Private and confidential? handling personal information in social and health services. Policy Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Education (2010) Review of child protection: better frontline services to protect children. Press notice, 10 June. http://www.education.gov.uk/news/press-notices-new/reviewofchildprotection
  13. DNA register ‘labels children criminal’ (2008) The observer, p 4Google Scholar
  14. Electronic tags to track dementia patients (2007) The Times, 27 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  15. Elmer G (2004) Profiling Machines. MIT, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. Garboden M (2010) Facebook-style site in bid to replace ContactPoint. Community care, 19 August. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/19/115106/facebook-style-site-in-bid-to-replace-ContactPoint.htm
  17. Garrett PM (1999) Producing the moral citizen: the looking after children’ system and the regulation of children and young people in public care. Crit Soc Pol 19(3):291–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrett PM (2003) Remaking social work with children and families: a critical discussion on the ‘modernisation’ of social care. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrett PM (2005) Social work’s ‘electronic turn’: notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families. Crit Soc Pol 25(4):529–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrett PM (2009a) ‘Transforming’ children’s services? social work, neoliberalism and the ‘modern’ world. McGraw Hill/Open University, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrett PM (2009b) Marx and ‘modernization’: reading capital as social critique and inspiration for social work resistance to neoliberalization. J Soc Work 9(2):199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garrett PM (2009c) The case of ‘Baby P’: opening up spaces for debate on the ‘transformation’ of children’s services. Crit Soc Pol 29(3):533–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GMB (2005) GMB congress demands end to electronic tagging of workers ‘battery farm’ workplaces. Press release, 6 June. http://www.gmb.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?/NodalID=91861
  24. Graef R (2008) The usual suspects. The Guardian, 21 March, p 42Google Scholar
  25. Home Office Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Introducing compulsory identity cards for foreign nationals. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (2009) Surveillance: citizens and the state. Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. ID cards may put poorer people at risk of fraud (2008) The Guardian, 16 May, p 11Google Scholar
  28. ID contractor denounced over data lose (2008) The Guardian, 23 AugustGoogle Scholar
  29. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (2006a) A report on the surveillance society: for the information commissioner by the surveillance studies network. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf
  30. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (2006b) protecting children’s personal information: ICO issues paper, 22 November 2006. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2006/protecting_childrens_personal_information.pdf
  31. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (2010) information commissioner’s report to parliament on the state of surveillance. http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/surveillance_report_for_home_select_committee.ashx
  32. James AL, James A (2001) Tightening the net: children, community and control. Br J Sociol 52(2):211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jameson F (2002) The dialectics of disaster. S Atl Q 101(2):197–305Google Scholar
  34. JCHR (House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights) (2004) Children bill: nineteenth report of the session 2003–2004. Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Ling T (2002) Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems. Public Adm 80(4):615–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lost in the post—25 million at risk after discs go missing (2007) The Guardian, 21 November, p 1Google Scholar
  37. Lyon D (2001a) Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Open University, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyon D (2001b) Surveillance after September 11. Sociological research online 6 (3). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/3/lyon.html
  39. Lyon D (2003) Surveillance after September 11. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Lyon D (ed) (2006) Theorizing surveillance. Willan, DevonGoogle Scholar
  41. May C (2002) The information society. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Nellis M (2005) Electronic monitoring, satellite tracking, and the new punitiveness in England and Wales. In: Pratt J et al (eds) The new punitiveness: trends theories and perspectives. Willan, Devon, pp 167–189Google Scholar
  43. Ofsted, Healthcare Commission, HMC (2008) Joint area review: haringey children’s services authority area. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_providers/la_download/(id)/4657/(as)/JAR/jar_2008_309_fr.pdf
  44. Penna S (2005) The children act 2004: child protection and social surveillance. J Soc Welf Fam Law 27(2):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Personal details of millions of learner drivers lost by contractor in Iowa (2007) The Guardian, 18 December, p 4Google Scholar
  46. Pithouse A et al (2009) A tale of two CAFs: the impact of the electronic common assessment framework. Br J Soc Work, Advanced access from 25th February. http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/
  47. Prisoners ‘to be chipped like dogs’ (2008) The independent on Sunday, 13 January, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  48. Rose N (2000) Government and control. Br J Criminol 40:321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sales R (2002) The deserving and undeserving? refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain. Crit Soc Policy 22(3):456–479Google Scholar
  50. Security fears prompt call for the scrapping of children’s database (2007) The Guardian, 6 December, p 10Google Scholar
  51. Skinner G, Tonsager AM, Hall N (2003) Privacy and data-sharing: survey of public awareness and perceptions. MORI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. UNISON (2008) Progress report on safeguarding: UNISON memorandum of lord laming. London, UNISON. http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B4364a.pdf
  53. VeriChip (2007) VeriChip corporation partners with alzheimer’s community care. Press release, 22 February. http://www.verichipcorp/news/1172151146
  54. Wacquant L (2009) Punishing the poor: the neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  55. White S, Hall C, Peckover S (2008) The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. Br J Soc Work. Advanced electronic access from 16 April 2008. http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/
  56. Winchester R (2003) Welcome to the machine. community care, October 30–5 November, pp 26–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science and SociologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations