ABSTRACT
It is being increasingly recognized that there are major differences in the character, scope and reception of surveillance in specific places (Hier and Lyon 2004; Norris et al. 2004; Bennett and Lyon 2008; Arteaga Botello 2009; Murakami Wood 2009; Zureik et al. 2010). However, we still know relatively little about the interaction of global processes of risk and security with existing historical cultural trajectories in particular places, or how the forms, operation, understanding and interactions of surveillance are mediated or moderated by the contexts of reception.
