WHEW!
I don't think I've ever felt relief quite on the scale I did half an hour ago. About a month ago I had to write a shitty essay on panopticonism and how it influences drug using behaviour. Anyway! I was sure I had failed. Absolutely positive about it and was already starting to plan out how I would have to alter my degree to fit in another subject (I'm already doing that over another subject I'm unsure about, but that's another story)... Well, I just got my marks back and not only did I pass the subject but I got really good marks for the essay! :D
I thought I'd post it on here for anyone who is into sociology, Foucault's theory of panopticonism or how people monitor and influence drug use... or for any poor sod who gets stuck with a similar topic in the future...
-----
QUESTION ONE: Michel Foucault’s metaphor of the panopticon indicates that under surveillance, people begin to police their own behaviours. In what ways do people tend to monitor and police their own and other’s drug using behaviour?
In this essay the question of how people in today’s society monitor theirs, and others around them, drug use will attempt to be addressed. However, there is very little sociological evidence and discussion specifically related to how people police theirs and others drug use. Still, there does appear to be a lot in reference to how this is done regarding the monitoring of general deviant behaviour. As such, this essay will be prove that drug use is considered a deviant behaviour and thus it is assumed that these particular methods, if implemented, would have the same consequence on drug use. Firstly this essay will first look at how people police general deviant behaviour. It will then go on to describe the sociological concept that explains the examples given, before looking at the few specifics available that relate to the monitoring drug use.
Before looking into the monitoring of deviant behaviour, the term “deviant behaviour” must first be defined. Deviance has been described in the theory of symbolic interactionism as any actions and/or behaviours that violate the norms of any given culture, whether they are legal or social in nature (Gray, 2006). According to this definition, therefore, the meaning of deviant behaviour is fluid and varies from culture to culture (Gray, 2006). It would be fair to say that in our culture, broadly as “Australian” and even broader still “Western”, that acts such as graffiti, littering, stealing, assault and murder are considered deviant as they are against the law. Also on this list of behaviours would be drug use as there are laws against the use of such (Australian Drug Foundation (ADF), 2010). Although, this doesn’t apply to all drug use (ADF, 2010). Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are considered socially acceptable, if over the legal age and within certain situations, and are therefore not viewed as deviant (ADF, 2010).
There are several examples of how various deviant behaviours have been monitored and even altered, in some cases, by the possibility of being watched. One of the most obvious and notable being the implementation of CCTV cameras across Britain in an attempt to decrease the rate in which crime is committed (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010).
Within Britain the strategy of using constant surveillance has been put into effect in an attempt to cut down on various unwanted behaviours such as graffiti, pick pocketing and assault with various levels of success (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). Nowadays the general British citizen can expect to be caught on camera around 300 times in a single day (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). There are CCTV cameras that watch and record the movements of anyone within it’s visual range and some will follow those who walk across it’s visual range (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). Newer models even ‘talk’ to people who are exhibiting criminal behaviours (Watson, 2005). Many believe that if every movement can be monitored, then people will change their behaviour (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). However, surveys and studies conducted since the implementation of this monitoring suggest that for every thousand CCTV cameras in use, only one crime is solved (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). It is also suggested, though, that if the solve rate was to increase, and the possibility of punishment for deviant behaviour was therefore also increased, that the actions of those exhibiting these anti-social behaviours would be altered (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010).
Within Germany, laws have been changed and communication providers are now required to record who communicated with whom and when (although not the content of) (Sander, 2008). A recent survey of just over one thousand individuals asked how these laws have affected their behaviour (Working Group Data Retention (WGDR), n.d.). Of these, 11 percent said they altered their behaviour and 54 percent said they probably wouldn’t use any form of telecommunications when contacting drug councilors, psychotherapists or marriage councilors (WGDR, n.d.).
Another example of attempting to monitor and subsequently change deviant behaviour can be seen in the 2002 Australian government ‘Don’t Be A Tosser’ campaign (NSW Government, 2011). This initiative encouraged people in the community to be on the look out for those that would litter and embarrass them by calling them a ‘tosser’, or even dob them in (NSW Government, 2011). This actually resulted in a steep decrease in the amount of littering (NSW Government, 2011). It was so successful in fact that littering rates continued to stay low even after the campaign finished, and is even occasionally rerun with slightly different spins (NSW Government, 2011). For instance, it was re run in 2007 with the focus on the littering of cigarette butts within Victoria (State Government of Victoria, 2008).
In all these examples one particular sociological phenomenon can be witnessed. In 1975 (1977 for the english-speaking population) the philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault published his book, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison” (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). In this book Foucault analysed a prison structure proposed by Jeremy Bentham in 1787 (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). This proposed structure was designed in such a way that minimal supervision would be required, and that only one guard would be needed to view all the inmates from his single vantage point (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). The most ingenious part of this design, however, was that the prisoners couldn’t see the guard and as such would know when they were and weren’t being watched (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Also included in the design was the regular reshuffling of the prisoners as a way of rewarding and punishing their various behaviours (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). This design was named the ‘Panopticon’ (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Foucault went further in his book to devise a sociological concept which stated that under constant surveillance those being watched tend to not act out or behave in a deviant manner and even alter how they act (Gray, 2006; Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). This theory is referred to as ‘Panopticism’ (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000).
This particular theory can be seen in a number of ways in relation to various drug-using behaviours. Probably one of the most well known would be random breath testing carried out by police officers the world over (RTA, n.d. a). Even though drinking alcohol is not considered deviant in itself, the intake of such a substance followed by the driving of a vehicle is (RTA, n.d. a). The idea behind random breath testing is that, due to the randomisation and unexpected nature of it, people will avoid doing it in an attempt to not be caught and penalised (RTA, n.d. a). It also attempts to catch out those that have done so and therefore alter the future behaviour of those individuals (RTA, n.d. a). Panopticism can even be seen in the television advertisements that warn of random breath testing (Lacaze, 2009). In a recent advertisement the subject, a young man who has just exited a pub after having a few drinks, goes to drive his car but everywhere he turns he sees police officers watching him before, at the conclusion of the ad, he is pulled over and breathalysed (Lacaze, 2009). Due to the successful nature of randomised breath testing and the development of quick and easy lab tests, random drug testing of drivers for illicit substances has also made it’s way to our streets (RTA, n.d. b). Like the random breath testing, the unpredictable nature of a random drug test hopes to cause people to alter their behaviour (RTA, n.d. b). The driver never knows when someone is watching, ready to drug test and possibly catch them out so they begin to monitor their own use to avoid this possibility and, therefore, punishment (Lacaze, 2009; RTA, n.d. b).
One other well-known example in which the drug use of certain people is monitored is the random drug screenings that various athletes must agree to (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), 2010a). With drug screenings possible at anytime it’s the aim that such actions will result in those athletes monitoring their intake of any drugs so as to avoid being caught and possibly penalised (ASADA, 2010b).
Another example of drug use being monitored is the screening of employees within certain work places (DirectGov, n.d.). Again, because of the randomised nature of the testing, it is hoped that those that can be tested will alter their behaviour to avoid being caught out (Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, 2009). It has also been suggested, within the UK, to randomly test school children for the presence of illegal drugs (Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), 2005). There is concern, however that this would force the behaviour further underground resulting in an increased risk to those students who use (JRF, 2005).
Possibly the biggest risk associated with the monitoring of peoples drug use in this manner is that it won’t cause them to discontinue, or avoid, using drugs (Guinness, 2011; Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, 2009). Instead there is the possibility that, to avoid detection, they will change their intake to drugs that aren’t specifically tested for (Guinness, 2011). Since the development of screening methods, suppliers that been coming up with new drugs to stay ahead of the curve, as can be seen in the recent introduction of Kronic (Spriggs, 2011). Kronic, also known as K2 or Spice, has been developed in the wake of marijuana detection (Jones, 2011; Spriggs, 2011). It is undetectable, and technically legal at the moment, and so allows for users to take it without fear of being caught or punished (O’Brien, 2011). However, it also has the risk of being more dangerous than the original marijuana it is based upon (Jones, 2011). It appears as though, as new screening methods are discovered the drug new, undetectable substances are being created.
In all these cases, where drug use is the thing specifically being monitored, the method of monitoring is the same: randomised testing. The interesting thing is that although it involves the monitoring others drug use, it has the added effect of making one monitor ones own drug use at the same time. A person knows of the possibility that they will be randomly selected and testing so, to avoid possible punishment, they will alter their behaviour to do so. Although the success of some interventions is still unclear, when applying the theory of panopticism, if the intervention is implemented the correct way the possibility that someone somewhere is watching will cause the one being watched to change their behaviour.
-----
REFERENCES
Australian Drug Foundation. (2010). Drug law in Australia: DrugInfo. Retrieved May 26, 2011 from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/topics/drug-law-in-australia
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. (2010a). ASADA: Testing guide. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.asada.gov.au/testing/rights_responsibilities.html
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. (2010b). ASADA: Testing guide. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.asada.gov.au/testing/testing_guide.html
DirectGov. (n.d.). Drug testing and employee monitoring: DirectGov - Employment. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026594
Gray, D. (2006). Health sociology: An Australian Perspective. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.
Guinness, R. (2011). Prescription drug use increasing as athletes avoid detection: SMH. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/sport/prescription-drug-use-increasing-as-athletes-try-to-avoid-detection-20110201-1achp.html
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2005). Random drug-testing of schoolchildren. Retrieved Friday, May 20, 2011 from http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/random-drug-testing-schoolchildren
Jones, J. (2011). Kronic ‘legal weed’ alarm: Newcastle Herald. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/kronic-legal-weed-alarm/2166158.aspx
Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon Revisited. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), 135-138.
Lacaze, D. (2009, November 8). RTA “Better get a lawyer” [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evKC40OVevw
NSW Government. (2011). Environment & Heritage: NSW Government Litter Prevention Program. Retrieved May 21, 2011 from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/warr/NSWgovernment.htm
O’Brien, A. (2011). Miners working high on synthetic grass: The Australian. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/miners-working-high-on-synthetic-grass/story-e6frg6nf-1226038731374
Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner. (2009). The workplace & AOD use: Research & best practice approaches. Retrieved May 26, 2011 from http://fsc.gov.au/Resources/AZ/Documents/Research_and_Best_Practice_Approaches.rtf
RTA. (n.d. a). GEARED: It’s So Random. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/geared/licence/its_so_random.html
RTA. (n.d. b). GEARED: Drug Drivers. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/geared/licence/drug_drivers.html
Sander, F. (2008). Data Retention Effectively Changes the Behaviour of Citizens in Germany. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.kreativrauschen.com/blog/2008/06/04/data-retention-effectively-changes-the-behavior-of-citizens-in-germany/
Spriggs, E. (2011). Kronic smokers draw unwanted attention: ABC News. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/12/3215308.htm
State Government of Victoria. (2008). Campaign tracking and results: Sustainability Victoria. Retrieved May 21, 2011 from http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/2597-campaign-tracking-and-results.asp
Watson, D. (2005). Talking Street Camera. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.infowars.com/articles/big_brother/surveillance/cameras_cctv/talking_street_camera.html
Working Group Data Retention. (n.d.) Stoppt die Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/forsa_2008-06-03.pdf
-----
Now to wait the 15 days until I get my other marks back! :S
I thought I'd post it on here for anyone who is into sociology, Foucault's theory of panopticonism or how people monitor and influence drug use... or for any poor sod who gets stuck with a similar topic in the future...
-----
QUESTION ONE: Michel Foucault’s metaphor of the panopticon indicates that under surveillance, people begin to police their own behaviours. In what ways do people tend to monitor and police their own and other’s drug using behaviour?
In this essay the question of how people in today’s society monitor theirs, and others around them, drug use will attempt to be addressed. However, there is very little sociological evidence and discussion specifically related to how people police theirs and others drug use. Still, there does appear to be a lot in reference to how this is done regarding the monitoring of general deviant behaviour. As such, this essay will be prove that drug use is considered a deviant behaviour and thus it is assumed that these particular methods, if implemented, would have the same consequence on drug use. Firstly this essay will first look at how people police general deviant behaviour. It will then go on to describe the sociological concept that explains the examples given, before looking at the few specifics available that relate to the monitoring drug use.
Before looking into the monitoring of deviant behaviour, the term “deviant behaviour” must first be defined. Deviance has been described in the theory of symbolic interactionism as any actions and/or behaviours that violate the norms of any given culture, whether they are legal or social in nature (Gray, 2006). According to this definition, therefore, the meaning of deviant behaviour is fluid and varies from culture to culture (Gray, 2006). It would be fair to say that in our culture, broadly as “Australian” and even broader still “Western”, that acts such as graffiti, littering, stealing, assault and murder are considered deviant as they are against the law. Also on this list of behaviours would be drug use as there are laws against the use of such (Australian Drug Foundation (ADF), 2010). Although, this doesn’t apply to all drug use (ADF, 2010). Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are considered socially acceptable, if over the legal age and within certain situations, and are therefore not viewed as deviant (ADF, 2010).
There are several examples of how various deviant behaviours have been monitored and even altered, in some cases, by the possibility of being watched. One of the most obvious and notable being the implementation of CCTV cameras across Britain in an attempt to decrease the rate in which crime is committed (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010).
Within Britain the strategy of using constant surveillance has been put into effect in an attempt to cut down on various unwanted behaviours such as graffiti, pick pocketing and assault with various levels of success (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). Nowadays the general British citizen can expect to be caught on camera around 300 times in a single day (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). There are CCTV cameras that watch and record the movements of anyone within it’s visual range and some will follow those who walk across it’s visual range (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). Newer models even ‘talk’ to people who are exhibiting criminal behaviours (Watson, 2005). Many believe that if every movement can be monitored, then people will change their behaviour (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). However, surveys and studies conducted since the implementation of this monitoring suggest that for every thousand CCTV cameras in use, only one crime is solved (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). It is also suggested, though, that if the solve rate was to increase, and the possibility of punishment for deviant behaviour was therefore also increased, that the actions of those exhibiting these anti-social behaviours would be altered (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010).
Within Germany, laws have been changed and communication providers are now required to record who communicated with whom and when (although not the content of) (Sander, 2008). A recent survey of just over one thousand individuals asked how these laws have affected their behaviour (Working Group Data Retention (WGDR), n.d.). Of these, 11 percent said they altered their behaviour and 54 percent said they probably wouldn’t use any form of telecommunications when contacting drug councilors, psychotherapists or marriage councilors (WGDR, n.d.).
Another example of attempting to monitor and subsequently change deviant behaviour can be seen in the 2002 Australian government ‘Don’t Be A Tosser’ campaign (NSW Government, 2011). This initiative encouraged people in the community to be on the look out for those that would litter and embarrass them by calling them a ‘tosser’, or even dob them in (NSW Government, 2011). This actually resulted in a steep decrease in the amount of littering (NSW Government, 2011). It was so successful in fact that littering rates continued to stay low even after the campaign finished, and is even occasionally rerun with slightly different spins (NSW Government, 2011). For instance, it was re run in 2007 with the focus on the littering of cigarette butts within Victoria (State Government of Victoria, 2008).
In all these examples one particular sociological phenomenon can be witnessed. In 1975 (1977 for the english-speaking population) the philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault published his book, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison” (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). In this book Foucault analysed a prison structure proposed by Jeremy Bentham in 1787 (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). This proposed structure was designed in such a way that minimal supervision would be required, and that only one guard would be needed to view all the inmates from his single vantage point (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). The most ingenious part of this design, however, was that the prisoners couldn’t see the guard and as such would know when they were and weren’t being watched (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Also included in the design was the regular reshuffling of the prisoners as a way of rewarding and punishing their various behaviours (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). This design was named the ‘Panopticon’ (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Foucault went further in his book to devise a sociological concept which stated that under constant surveillance those being watched tend to not act out or behave in a deviant manner and even alter how they act (Gray, 2006; Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). This theory is referred to as ‘Panopticism’ (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000).
This particular theory can be seen in a number of ways in relation to various drug-using behaviours. Probably one of the most well known would be random breath testing carried out by police officers the world over (RTA, n.d. a). Even though drinking alcohol is not considered deviant in itself, the intake of such a substance followed by the driving of a vehicle is (RTA, n.d. a). The idea behind random breath testing is that, due to the randomisation and unexpected nature of it, people will avoid doing it in an attempt to not be caught and penalised (RTA, n.d. a). It also attempts to catch out those that have done so and therefore alter the future behaviour of those individuals (RTA, n.d. a). Panopticism can even be seen in the television advertisements that warn of random breath testing (Lacaze, 2009). In a recent advertisement the subject, a young man who has just exited a pub after having a few drinks, goes to drive his car but everywhere he turns he sees police officers watching him before, at the conclusion of the ad, he is pulled over and breathalysed (Lacaze, 2009). Due to the successful nature of randomised breath testing and the development of quick and easy lab tests, random drug testing of drivers for illicit substances has also made it’s way to our streets (RTA, n.d. b). Like the random breath testing, the unpredictable nature of a random drug test hopes to cause people to alter their behaviour (RTA, n.d. b). The driver never knows when someone is watching, ready to drug test and possibly catch them out so they begin to monitor their own use to avoid this possibility and, therefore, punishment (Lacaze, 2009; RTA, n.d. b).
One other well-known example in which the drug use of certain people is monitored is the random drug screenings that various athletes must agree to (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), 2010a). With drug screenings possible at anytime it’s the aim that such actions will result in those athletes monitoring their intake of any drugs so as to avoid being caught and possibly penalised (ASADA, 2010b).
Another example of drug use being monitored is the screening of employees within certain work places (DirectGov, n.d.). Again, because of the randomised nature of the testing, it is hoped that those that can be tested will alter their behaviour to avoid being caught out (Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, 2009). It has also been suggested, within the UK, to randomly test school children for the presence of illegal drugs (Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), 2005). There is concern, however that this would force the behaviour further underground resulting in an increased risk to those students who use (JRF, 2005).
Possibly the biggest risk associated with the monitoring of peoples drug use in this manner is that it won’t cause them to discontinue, or avoid, using drugs (Guinness, 2011; Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, 2009). Instead there is the possibility that, to avoid detection, they will change their intake to drugs that aren’t specifically tested for (Guinness, 2011). Since the development of screening methods, suppliers that been coming up with new drugs to stay ahead of the curve, as can be seen in the recent introduction of Kronic (Spriggs, 2011). Kronic, also known as K2 or Spice, has been developed in the wake of marijuana detection (Jones, 2011; Spriggs, 2011). It is undetectable, and technically legal at the moment, and so allows for users to take it without fear of being caught or punished (O’Brien, 2011). However, it also has the risk of being more dangerous than the original marijuana it is based upon (Jones, 2011). It appears as though, as new screening methods are discovered the drug new, undetectable substances are being created.
In all these cases, where drug use is the thing specifically being monitored, the method of monitoring is the same: randomised testing. The interesting thing is that although it involves the monitoring others drug use, it has the added effect of making one monitor ones own drug use at the same time. A person knows of the possibility that they will be randomly selected and testing so, to avoid possible punishment, they will alter their behaviour to do so. Although the success of some interventions is still unclear, when applying the theory of panopticism, if the intervention is implemented the correct way the possibility that someone somewhere is watching will cause the one being watched to change their behaviour.
-----
REFERENCES
Australian Drug Foundation. (2010). Drug law in Australia: DrugInfo. Retrieved May 26, 2011 from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/topics/drug-law-in-australia
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. (2010a). ASADA: Testing guide. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.asada.gov.au/testing/rights_responsibilities.html
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. (2010b). ASADA: Testing guide. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.asada.gov.au/testing/testing_guide.html
DirectGov. (n.d.). Drug testing and employee monitoring: DirectGov - Employment. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026594
Gray, D. (2006). Health sociology: An Australian Perspective. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.
Guinness, R. (2011). Prescription drug use increasing as athletes avoid detection: SMH. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/sport/prescription-drug-use-increasing-as-athletes-try-to-avoid-detection-20110201-1achp.html
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2005). Random drug-testing of schoolchildren. Retrieved Friday, May 20, 2011 from http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/random-drug-testing-schoolchildren
Jones, J. (2011). Kronic ‘legal weed’ alarm: Newcastle Herald. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/kronic-legal-weed-alarm/2166158.aspx
Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon Revisited. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), 135-138.
Lacaze, D. (2009, November 8). RTA “Better get a lawyer” [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evKC40OVevw
NSW Government. (2011). Environment & Heritage: NSW Government Litter Prevention Program. Retrieved May 21, 2011 from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/warr/NSWgovernment.htm
O’Brien, A. (2011). Miners working high on synthetic grass: The Australian. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/miners-working-high-on-synthetic-grass/story-e6frg6nf-1226038731374
Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner. (2009). The workplace & AOD use: Research & best practice approaches. Retrieved May 26, 2011 from http://fsc.gov.au/Resources/AZ/Documents/Research_and_Best_Practice_Approaches.rtf
RTA. (n.d. a). GEARED: It’s So Random. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/geared/licence/its_so_random.html
RTA. (n.d. b). GEARED: Drug Drivers. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/geared/licence/drug_drivers.html
Sander, F. (2008). Data Retention Effectively Changes the Behaviour of Citizens in Germany. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.kreativrauschen.com/blog/2008/06/04/data-retention-effectively-changes-the-behavior-of-citizens-in-germany/
Spriggs, E. (2011). Kronic smokers draw unwanted attention: ABC News. Retrieved May 19, 2011 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/12/3215308.htm
State Government of Victoria. (2008). Campaign tracking and results: Sustainability Victoria. Retrieved May 21, 2011 from http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/2597-campaign-tracking-and-results.asp
Watson, D. (2005). Talking Street Camera. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.infowars.com/articles/big_brother/surveillance/cameras_cctv/talking_street_camera.html
Working Group Data Retention. (n.d.) Stoppt die Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/forsa_2008-06-03.pdf
-----
Now to wait the 15 days until I get my other marks back! :S