Uberveillance Almost Twenty Years On: A Reader
Citation: M. G. Michael and K. Michael, "Uberveillance Almost Twenty Years On: A Reader," in Computer, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 140-149, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1109/MC.2025.3617991.
It is well documented that the smartphone has become a modern Swiss Army knife: driver’s license, e-payment device, camera, radio, television, map, blood pressure monitor, workstation, babysitter, pocket AI, and general gateway to the Internet.1 People do not carry wallets and purses any longer, armed with a smartphone that has become their mobile hub for use cases ranging from government services requiring identification to scheduling an appointment with a general practitioner to submitting employee expenses for reimbursement and even providing location-enabled feedback to a local municipality.2 Transactions that required several tokens for authentication, the need to speak to a personal assistant, or even certified copies of documentation have now been disintermediated.
But there is a new prevalent trend toward leaving that sizeable smartphone behind, in favor of a lightweight device with a much smaller interface.3 Many network service providers now offer wireless access on smartwatches that have increasingly replaced conventional timepieces and offer near equivalent functionality.4,5 With every upgrade and feature set update, for example smart bands6 and smart rings,7 our devices inch closer to us—our bodies, our minds. From the handheld to the wearable to the … Whatever it may be, it will be inextricably linked to wireless body area networks (WBANs) as stipulated in IEEE 802.15.6.
Toward Implantables
Beyond the use of brainwave technology, and adoption of brain-to-computer interfaces (BCIs) many have postulated that the next frontier will be implantables that mean we will not have to lug around or wear anything at all.8,9,10,11,12 Rather we will become bearers of electro-magnetic technology.13,14 Consider the established idea of the electrophorus (bearer of light).15,16,17 Comparisons between implantables have been made with, for example, biometric fingerprints that likewise do not require additional procedural steps beyond registration. In the case of biometrics, your body part that is unique to you is your token, on the surface of your skin (for example, fingerprint minutiae or palmprints).18 In the case of embedded chips, something you implant into your body—a foreign object that is electromagnetic and can be triggered when in proximity to readers—becomes your token in the form of a unique identification number that can be linked to externally stored information in databases.19
Implants, it has been considered, may also facilitate the fusion of humans and machines for a variety of contexts beyond simple electromagnetic transference for proof of identity.20 Consider it like a port bridging the analog (human) and the digital (machine), though this translation is still in its very nascent stages and wholly exploratory and experimental. While implantables have existed for medical prosthesis for more than 65 years,21 seeing past the obvious challenges (for example, complex insertion process) for everyday use, the scenario still remains viable but one that challenges fundamental human rights, given the breaking of skin. In the past, tattoos have come closest to “piercing the skin” and have required informed consent by the wearer with direct legal implications,22 but we are not yet ready for the actual or perceived complications that implantables for daily use may pose (for example, see this report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration23).
Uberveillance Enters the Lexicon
Nearly 20 years ago, in 2006—before X, Amazon Web Services, the iPhone, Fitbit, Uber, Google Glass, or ChatGPT—M.G. Michael observed patterns of surveillance facilitated by the growing underlying wireless network infrastructure and coined the term “uberveillance,” which shortly after entered the official dictionary of Australia, the Macquarie Dictionary24,25 and is now also recognized in the Oxford Law Reference Dictionary.26 Uberveillance is a noun, “an omnipresent electronic surveillance facilitated by technology that makes it possible to embed surveillance devices in the human body. Also, überveillance.”24
Roger Clarke wrote in 2007,27 “A useful working definition that they [the authors] offer is ‘an above and beyond omnipresent 24/7 surveillance where the explicit concerns for misinformation, misinterpretation, and information manipulation, are ever more multiplied and where potentially the technology is embedded into our body’… The word appears not to have existed until Michael… coined it. Its stem and suffix, ‘-veillance,’ are clearly coopted from ‘surveillance.’ Originally, this derived from the French ‘surveiller,’ whose contemporary senses include ‘to keep an eye on’ (e.g., luggage), to supervise (e.g., people), to monitor (e.g., people, an object or a space), and to invigilate (to watch candidates in an examination)… The prefix ‘über’ is drawn directly from German.”
In 2010, Prof. Keith Miller, editor in chief of the IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, published a special section (vol. 29, no. 10) dedicated to uberveillance. Soon after, IEEE Technology News,28 described uberveillance as: “a newly emerging term in the name of national security, refers to surveillance that applies across all space and all time and supports some organization that is omniscient, at least relative to some person or object. Uberveillance insists on embedding the surveillance mechanism within the person or object to be monitored and sends the report to the monitoring organization periodically or continuously. With this, will our society become safer to live in or will it be heading toward self-destruction through the denial of the very freedoms of individuals?” Prof. Deborah Lupton29 wrote on her Digital Sociology blog in 2013, “Uberveillance: watching from all directions, particularly with the use of tracking devices worn on or embedded into the human body.”
Indeed, uberveillance has received international recognition30 for its bold explication of a future scenario that is here now in fragments, that have yet to be conjoined one to another, seamlessly.31,32 It had been two years earlier that a company had listed on the New York Stock Exchange with several patents,33 promoting the value of implantables for secure payments, physical access control, prisoner management, and even solutions for Alzheimer’s facilities.34 While the company did not trade for too long as the American market was not ready to adopt the technology,35,36 we focused on the potential ethical, legal, and social implications, having understood that varying levels of control would soon be instituted through increasingly pervasive and invasive technologies.37 As but a few examples, by 2010, uberveillance had been adopted as a central theme of Sam Yarney’s novel titled, The Banjo Player; by 2011, uberveillance was featured in an EICAR (École internationale de Création audiovisuelle et de Réalisation) short film in France; by 2013, indie filmmaker “Jore” had incorporated uberveillance into a documentary, and by 2015, three songs were written by Martin Hale and Greg Barnett and recorded by the band Nothing At All in the album Prescient, among many other popular usages.
Antecedents
The technological trajectory38 manifests through patents, pilots, scenarios, prototypes and proposed products and services, in this instance, chips implanted inside the human body to identify people and offer them digital services on demand.19,39,40,41,42,43 Hardware placed in the arm might let one pay at the checkout simply by waving a hand, or allow a first responder to scan a patient’s vital signs and medical records in an emergency, or even leave their passport behind.44 Such implants brought with them a perceived increase in security. They remain inside the body, hidden from view, and cannot be stolen, or accidentally left behind, yet have been deemed vulnerable to outsider attacks.45
M.G. Michael searched for a word that would summarize what he was seeing emerge in several knowledge domains, and all around us through everyday life. He imagined a coming together of Orwell’s Big Brother, microchip implants, radio-frequency identification devices (RFID), GPS, apocalypticism, and Nietzsche’s idea of the ultimate, superior, progressed human form, the Übermensch. Michael called it “uberveillance.”46,47 The neologism soon took on a life of its own, cited in reference books, government reports, titles of workshops, highlighted in informed commentary, and even advocacy work.48,49,50,51,52,53
Properties
Uberveillance is fundamentally an above and beyond, exaggerated, almost omnipresent, 24/7 electronic surveillance. It is not only always on but also always with you.54 Like an airplane flight recorder, a personal “black box.”55,56 Or, if you prefer, it is like Big Brother on the inside looking out. Fundamentally, uberveillance requires data to make predictions and inferences about patterns of movement, patterns of being, patterns of behavior that are continuously monitored by various network types providing total visibility through seamless hand-offs.57 This kind of bodily and hyperinvasive monitoring is not risk-free and won’t necessarily make us safer and more secure. Omnipresence in the physical world does not equate with omniscience.58 Despite their tremendous data gathering capacities, there is a real concern that implantable devices will breed misinformation, misinterpretation, and information manipulation, all of which may lead to misrepresentations of the truth.59
Converging Technologies
In our original conception, uberveillance was multidimensional.60 A tiny RFID transponder, implanted in the arm or hand, would connect with sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers and be tethered to a smartphone.61,62 Uberveillance would use GPS and other technologies to allow designated authorities to understand the who, where, when, why, what, and how. We imagined government authorities would use it in the context of civilian, commercial, or national security—as a find-me alert63—for example, monitoring people living with dementia or on extended supervision orders, tracking suspects in crimes, parolees, or notable public figures or dignitaries, allowing access to secured buildings or rooms,64 or even the location of missing persons.65,66
Potential Shortcomings
Yet despite the perceived benefits, even in the early 2000s, we could not ignore the sinister undertones.67 How far would this go? Was uberveillant technology too alluring—difficult to resist because of its ease of use? What if it did not always work as it should, proving subject to tampering, data bias, and inaccuracies?68 And what of the hacking of devices, some of these medical in nature?69 Deep fakes had already entered the dialogue but have now become perpetuated on a mega-scale by applications like generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), flooding mainstream open sources with side effects that have reached disturbing levels.
Constructing a verifiable digital end-to-end cyber-physical-social reality is impossible. There is no substitute for real life. Recorded data—incomplete with various kinds of “gaps” from multiple sources and without necessary quality checks—are not always accurate.70 Global positioning coordinates may lack precision when tall buildings obstruct a line-of-sight between the handheld or wearable technology and satellites. There are black spots in networks when an individual is in a dense urban location, and when they also move between urban and rural spaces, between indoor and outdoor locations, or even when hand-offs are occurring between different service providers.71
Context Missing
Furthermore, uberveillant systems leave out the all-important element of context. An image of an altercation may seem to provide evidence that implicates an individual, but snapshots of moments prior may show that the proposed attacker was acting in self-defense. Near-real time is not real time.72 This is the great flaw in uberveillance. Without capturing context, an accurate chronicle of activity is unattainable. And a flawed chronicle of activity can be devastating. GPS coordinates with a lag may tie a user to a suspicious event; facial recognition algorithms may identify a passerby as an individual of interest; implants that have been spoofed may appear in multiple hit lists, cloaking the identity of the bona fide individual at a given location; and biometric data could be interpreted to indicate distress when a subject may simply have been in reflection.73
Your cell service provider or smartwatch manufacturer might assure you they will only use your data for research. But they may also inform you they have no control over how their partners might use the biometric and other data downstream.74 Your wearable data could end up in an AI model one day or used by a prospective employer during a hiring process or be presented as evidence in a court of law.76 The wrong data might render you unemployable, uninsurable, and ineligible for government benefits. In an instant, you could become persona non grata.55,66,76
The Controllers and the Controlled
Uberveillance advances the idea of “us” versus a series of “thems”—data brokers, Big Tech companies, government agencies, hackers, secret intelligence, first responders, caregivers, and others.75,77 In doing so, “they” have power over how others perceive us and use our data, potentially building multiple black boxes containing intricate profiles—limited accounts of what makes us “us.” This technology is not free and will not set us free.
The paradox of all this pervasive vigilance is that the more security services and features we adopt, the greater our insecurities in practice.78 The relationship and tensions between stakeholders, increased security mechanisms, access rights, and relative levels of control and freedom are all complex matters that are not straightforward to implement because from a security perspective someone ultimately has to hold the keys, to protect the upper layers from micro to meso, and from meso to macro.79
The In(Security) Paradox
Ultimately, this means that while an individual may appear secure at the micro level, that security is contingent upon organizations at the meso level being able to “break in” to personal data when directed—for example, during the investigation of a felony. At the macro level, national security agencies may similarly claim access to the private dealings of organizations and individuals, even when those individuals hold legitimate expectations of privacy. In practice, the privacy interests of citizens are often subordinated to the broader, and sometimes asymmetric, security priorities of the nation-state.80
Greater security mechanisms and security infrastructure should lead to greater freedoms; in practice, these same controls may lead to insecurity at every level of the designated security profile. We have referred to this previously as the “axis of access.”81,82 For example, a government may seek to keep their citizenry secure during an emergency declaration by enabling blanket coverage smartphone location tracking capabilities, but beyond the question of whether this saves lives, might that same government seek this same visibility during times of calm, under the guise of safety and convenience?83
What is necessary is trans-sectoral accountability, where diverse stakeholders come together inclusive of government agencies, citizens, technology and service providers, private companies, the third sector to engage in public forums to determine anticipatory governance, stipulated regulation, sunset clauses, and appropriate privacy and design strategies.
When Thinking Means Speaking
In parallel, developments in brainwave technology and BCIs have introduced new dimensions to the implantables discourse.84 BCIs are designed to capture and translate neural activity into machine-readable commands, enabling direct interaction between thought and digital systems.85 While initially conceived for medical rehabilitation, such as restoring movement to people with spinal cord injuries or providing communication pathways for those with severe paralysis, the same techniques can be extended to broader human–machine integration. In such contexts, implants are not merely passive tokens of identity but active conduits of cognition, capable of both transmitting brain signals to external devices and, potentially, receiving feedback. This creates profound ethical and social questions: if implants mediate between the brain and the network, where does agency reside, and what safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity of thought itself?86 The fusion of neural data with ubiquitous connectivity extends uberveillance to its logical extreme, where the most private of human processes—thinking—may be rendered observable, interpretable, and even manipulable.87
Ontological Implications
Today, as in 2006, this strikes us as technology’s natural trajectory. From the moment the first programmable general purpose digital computer, the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer), was dubbed “an electronic brain,” it was always going to fuse with the body at its ultimate technological potential.88
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull,” Orwell ominously wrote in 1984.89 And yet uberveillance threatens that too: An embedded “smart” black box in the human body would encroach on a last fragment of private space. An internal closed-circuit television feed could bring about the most dehumanizing of prospects—a total loss of control and dignity, if used to surveil thoughts, rituals, habits, activities, appetites, urges, and movements.90,91,92,93 Such dystopian scenarios are no longer sci-fi imaginings alone.94
This has ontological implications, directly to do with the nature of being. It could represent the consequential deconstruction of what it means to be human, to have agency, and to make choices for oneself. If uberveillance is to expand and forge ahead on its current path, the scenarios are countless and potential consequences staggering. At that point, we will have surrendered more than just our privacy.95 And one of the great philo-theological questions, that of “free will,” will have to once again be reexamined anew.
What’s AI Got To Do With It?
AI represents the accelerant that makes uberveillance not only technically feasible but also socially pervasive. Where once the challenge was simply collecting streams of biometric or locational data, AI now promises, indeed threatens, to make sense of those data at speed and scale.56,76 Machine learning systems can identify patterns invisible to human perception, from microfluctuations in heart rate to subtle irregularities in gait, and render probabilistic inferences about an individual’s health, intent, or even state of mind.79,96 These inferences, however, are often treated as facts, despite the opacity of the algorithms and their dependence on flawed or incomplete data.87
GenAI compounds the concern.97 No longer confined to predictive analytics, AI can synthesize voices, faces, and entire lifeworlds indistinguishable from the “real.” In a context of uberveillance, where human beings themselves become data points, the boundary between authentic and artificial collapses.98 What does it mean when an AI-generated model of “you” (a.k.a. an AI-powered agent known as a digital twin) acts in the world—convincing employers, courts, or governments of things you never said or did? At this juncture, AI is not merely a tool within uberveillance but a coproducer of reality.67,99
The irony is stark: AI is deployed to create efficiencies, security, and personalized services, but it also magnifies insecurities, risks of manipulation, and dehumanization.100,101 Uberveillance powered by AI risks turning citizens into perpetual test subjects, their identities fractured into data sets endlessly recombined by opaque algorithms.102
Where Are We Headed?
The trajectory suggests a deepening fusion between human bodies, networked infrastructures, and machine intelligence.103,104,105 Implantables, wearables, and ambient sensing environments are converging into a ubiquitous, often invisible infrastructure that normalizes continuous monitoring. Already, states and corporations pilot “social credit” systems, predictive policing, and algorithmic health governance. What begins as opt-in convenience quickly mutates into an opt-out impossibility.
Where next is not only a technological question but a civilizational one.106,107 Do we accept a future where the human body is little more than an input—output device for AI systems? Or do we forge regulatory and ethical frameworks that preserve dignity, autonomy, and the sanctity of the private sphere? Key inflection points will include the expansion of AI-enabled implantables,79 the role of private corporations in governing intimate data, and the question of accountability when AI-driven decisions shape access to rights, resources, and recognition.108
The future is not yet set. We may yet choose to go the route of public interest technology.109 Where we are headed depends on our collective willingness to resist narratives like “the inevitable” and insist upon human-centered values in design, development, and deployment.110
Nearly two decades since the coining of “uberveillance,” the ripples of that once speculative future are unmistakably visible.111 From smart devices glued to our wrists to implantables, from mass biometric registration in places like India to the rise of GenAI, the infrastructure for a penetrating and all-encompassing surveillance has been laid from the outside, one digital brick at a time, and now beckons ever closer toward the inside. The risks are not hypothetical—they are lived realities of misidentification, data breaches, algorithmic discrimination, and possibly soon the creeping normalization of bodily, and psychological monitoring.119
And yet, trajectories are not destinies.112 Uberveillance poses profound ontological, ethical, and philosophical questions: What does it mean to remain human in an age where datafied doubles may carry more weight than our lived selves?113,114 How do we retain agency when algorithms anticipate our actions before we consciously make them?115 The answers require more than technical fixes; they demand democratic deliberation, trans-sectoral accountability, and a renewed commitment to human dignity.116
In closing, if the last twenty years have shown us anything, it is that technologies advance rapidly while ethical, legal, and social reflection struggles to keep pace. The challenge for the next twenty years will be to reverse that imbalance: to ensure that the design of our systems is led not by the logic of efficiency or control, but by values of freedom, justice, care, and compassion.117,118
References
1. M. Satyanarayanan, “Swiss army knife or wallet?,” IEEE Pervasive Comput., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 2–3, Jan. –Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1109/MPRV.2005.39.
2. P. Hargil and C. Kapuscinski, “Application explosion: What’s the right business model? ” in Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Intell. Next Gener. Netw., Berlin, Germany, 2010, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/ICIN.2010.5640942.
3. K. B. Min and J. Seo, “Efficient typing on ultrasmall touch screens with in situ decoder and visual feedback,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 75,187–75,201, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3081173.
4. Y. Li et al., “Control your home with a Smartwatch,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 131,601–131,613, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007328.
5. J. Sturgess, S. Eberz, I. Sluganovic, and I. Martinovic, “WatchAuth: User authentication and intent recognition in mobile payments using a smartwatch,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Eur. Symp. Secur. Privacy (EuroS&P), Genoa, Italy, 2022, pp. 377–391, doi: 10.1109/EuroSP53844.2022.00031.
6. D. Ekiz, Y. S. Can, Y. C. Dardagan, and C. Ersoy, “Can a smartband be used for continuous implicit authentication in real life,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 59,402–59,411, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982852.
7. M. Wang, C. Chen, H. Wu, J. Zhang, S. Zhou, and G. Wang, “Will smart ring be next wave of wearables? ” in Proc. IEEE Biomed. Circuits Syst. Conf. (BioCAS), Xi’an, China, 2024, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/BioCAS61083.2024.10798374.
8. H. Zhou and T.-W. Lee, “Display that bend and stretch: Some smartphones can now fold like a wallet. In a few years, you may wear one on your skin,” IEEE Spectr., vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 24–29, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.2020.9262146.
9. A. Graafstra, “Hands on,” IEEE Spectr., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 18–23, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.2007.323420.
10. J. Voas and N. Kshetri, “Human tagging,” Computer, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 78–85, 2017, doi: 10.1109/MC.2017.3641646.
11. K. Haggerty, “One generation is all they need, ” in Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies, M. G. Michael and K. Michael, Eds., Hershey, PA, USA : IGI Global, 2013, pp. xix–xxii.
12. P. A. Catherwood, D. D. Finlay, and J. A. McLaughlin, “Intelligent subcutaneous body area networks: Anticipating implantable devices,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 73–80, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1109/MTS.2016.2593219.
13. K. Michael and M. G. Michael, “Microchipping people: The rise of the electrophorus,” Quadrant, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 22–33, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.187033060913698
14. K. D. Stephan, K. Michael, M. G. Michael, L. Jacob, and E. P. Anesta, “Social implications of technology: The past, the present, and the future,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 100, no. Special Centennial Issue, pp. 1752–1781, May 2012, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2189919.
15. K. Michael, “The technological trajectory of the automatic identification industry: The application of the systems of innovation (SI) framework for the characterization and prediction of the auto-ID industry,” Ph.D. thesis, School of Inf. Technol. and Comput. Sci., Univ. of Wollongong, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://ro.uow.edu/theses/309
16. K. Michael and M. G. Michael, “Homo electricus and the continued speciation of humans, ” in The Encyclopedia of Information Ethics and Security, M. Quigley, Ed., Hershey, PA, USA : IGI Global, 2007, pp. 312–318.
17. K. Michael and M.G. Michael, Eds., Innovative Automatic Identification and Location-Based Services: From Bar Codes to Chip Implants: From Bar Codes to Chip Implants. Hershey, PA, USA : IGI Global, 2009.
18. O. S. Okpara and G. Bekaroo, “Cam-Wallet: Fingerprint-based authentication in M-wallets using embedded cameras,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Environ. Elect. Eng. IEEE Ind. Commercial Power Syst. Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), Milan, Italy, 2017, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/EEEIC.2017.7977654.
19. K. Michael et al., “Planetary-scale RFID services in an age of uberveillance,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 98, no. 9, pp. 1663–1671, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2050850.
20. Z. Abrams, “Breakthroughs in brain implants,” IEEE Pulse, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 7–10, Nov./Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1109/MPULS.2024.3353668.
21. C. M. Banbury, Surviving Technological Innovation in the Pacemaker Industry 1959-1990. New York, NY, USA : Garland, 1997.
22. L. Remmers and K. Michael, “Body modifications and their health implications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Technol. Soc. (ISTAS), Tempe, AZ, USA, 2020, pp. 134–141, doi: 10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462217.
23. “MAUDE adverse event report: Verichip Corp Verichip tracking device (PositiveID); Implantable radio frequency transponder system,” U.S. Food and Drug Admin., Silver Spring, MD, USA, Nov. 2014. Accessed: May 2, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=4515942&pc=NRV
24. S. Butler, Ed., “Uberveillance: Definition,” in Macquarie Dictionary (Australia’s National Dictionary), 5th ed., Sydney, Australia : Sydney Univ., 2009, p. 1094. [Online]. Available: http://works.bepress.com/kmichael/178/
25. M. G. Michael, S. J. Fusco, and K. Michael, “A research note on ethics in the emerging age of überveillance,” Comput. Commun., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1192–1199, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2008.01.023.
26. Oxford Reference, “Überveillance,” in Australian Law Dictionary. South Melbourne, VIC, Australia : Oxford Univ. Press, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110446167
27. R. Clarke, “What is überveillance? (And what should be done about it?),” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 17–25, Summer 2010, doi: 10.1109/MTS.2010.937030.
28. IEEE Staff, “What is überveillance? ” IEEE Technol. News, Aug. 6, 2010.
29. D. Lupton, “Types of veillance relevant to digital sociology,” This Sociol. Life, Dec. 16, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://simplysociology.wordpress.com/tag/uberveillance/
30. M. G. Michael and K. Michael, “Überveillance: 24/7 x 365-people tracking and monitoring,” in Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Data Protection Privacy Commissioners: Privacy Horizons, Terra Incognita, Montreal, Canada, 2007, pp. 25–28.
Authors
Independent researcher, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
M.G. Michael is an independent researcher, Wollongong, NSW, 2500 Australia.
The University of Sydney Business School, Darlington, NSW, Australia
Katina Michael is a professor and director of the MBA (Technology and Digital Strategy) program at The University of Sydney Business School, Darlington, NSW 2006, Australia. Contact her at katina.michael@sydney.edu.au.
Citation: M. G. Michael and K. Michael, "Uberveillance Almost Twenty Years On: A Reader," in Computer, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 140-149, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1109/MC.2025.3617991.