I agree with those who wish to have the entry related to Uberveillance reinstated, an important surveillance resource which has been removed in what can only have been, as Stephen McInerney says, an oversight by the moderators. An elemementary search on Google provides an incontrovertble mountain of evidence for both specialist and non-specialist alike for the increasing influence of this intelligent and well-timed neologism. Uberveillance, already the subject of a keynote address (including that from Professor Roger Clarke, the originator of "dataveillance") and supported by Professor Steve Mann (the originator of "sousveillance"), has been cited and referenced in numerous internationally peer-reviewed papers; referred to in many places in the global media (including Forbes Magazine, The New York Times, The National Post, The Sydney Morning Herald); been the key subject of at least two books; is presently in the curriculum of university teaching units; and is also one of the main themes of ISTAS 2010 (IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society). I feel it is an injustice to the originators of the term to have to defend it here in this space when the majority of their colleagues have accepted the term and it has been established in our language as was recently evidenced by its inclusion in The Macquarie Dictionary Fifth Edition, p. 1781).

Dr Nicholas Kyriacos