Introduction: Domestic Terrorism, White

Dialogue
Supremacy, and State Surveillance

Bryce Clayton Newell

University of Oregon, USA
bcnewell@uoregon.edu

On January 6, 2021, the world watched in shock as domestic right-wing extremists launched a violent attack
on the United States’ Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Many recorded and live-streamed their invasion,
documenting the violent assault on the capitol as they broke through barriers and Capitol Police forces,
breaching the building and taking up residence inside congressional chambers and the offices of
congressional representatives. The insurrection was triggered by Donald Trump’s inflammatory call to
action and the mob’s desire to halt the certification of electors and overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Figure 1: Domestic extremists storm the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. Source: Blink O'fanaye (flickr).
Licensed under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC 2.0) license.

Newell, Bryce Clayton. 2021. Introduction: Domestic Terrorism, White Supremacy, and State Surveillance.
Surveillance & Society 19(3): 338-344.
https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/index | ISSN: 1477-7487
© The author(s), 2021 | Licensed to the Surveillance Studies Network under a Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license
 Newell: Introduction

In the aftermath of the January 6th assault on the Capitol (and US democracy), public focus quickly turned
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) response and the ensuing investigation as well as to questions
about what information law enforcement and intelligence agencies had prior to the attack and how they
should have responded to that information prior to the Capitol invasion. Over the succeeding months, the
FBI’s investigation has shed greater light on the US federal government’s surveillance and classification of
domestic extremists and domestic terrorism. In June 2021, FBI Director Christopher Wray called the
insurrectionists “violent extremists” who had “betray[ed] the values of our democracy” (Wray 2021); he
had previously called their actions “domestic terrorism” (Naylor and Lucas 2021). Wray (2021) reaffirmed
the FBI’s position that “the greatest terrorism threat” to the US was from “domestic violent extremists
(DVEs) and homegrown violent extremists (HVEs).” He defined DVEs as “Individuals who commit violent
criminal acts in furtherance of social or political goals stemming from domestic influences—some of which
include racial or ethnic bias, or anti-government or anti-authority sentiments” (Wray 2021).

Wray’s statements confirmed that federal law enforcement had been conducting extensive surveillance of
domestic extremists in the year prior to the attack on the Capitol (see, e.g., Wray 2021). In the aftermath of
the attack, the FBI examined hundreds of thousands of digital tips, photographs, and videos collected
through crowdsourcing calls for evidence and open-source intelligence gathering practices (Wray 2021;
Ward 2021). The surveillance and scope of the investigation is tremendous, but its reliance on freely shared
or publicly posted visual-media content is not without some comparison. In this case, the FBI relied on
techniques used in the past to investigate violent public protests, such as those deployed by police after the
2011 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Vancouver Police Department 2011: 14,
71, 75, 92), and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing (Ackerman 2013; Wadhwa 2013; see also Newell
2014). And, of course, domestic extremism in the US is not just a recent phenomenon: the Oklahoma City
Bombing in 1995 remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in US history (O’Harrow, Tran, and
Hawkins 2021; Federal Bureau of Investigation n.d.) and, according the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of
RAND data, there were ninety-one “homegrown terrorist attacks” against the US between 2001 and 2009
(Muhlhausen and McNeill 2011). The Washington Post has reported that right- and left-wing extremists
have been involved in more than 330 plots of attacks since 2015 (O’Harrow, Tran, and Hawkins 2021).

Since the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, the FBI has arrested hundreds of individuals involved in
that insurrection (US Department of Justice 2021c). In recent years, they have also investigated and arrested
others involved in domestic terrorism cases. For example, in recent months, the FBI has announced guilty
pleas by multiple defendants who had been part of “The Base,” a “racially motivated violent extremist
group” motivated by white supremacist ideologies (US Department of Justice 2021d; US Department of
Justice 2020b); an individual who communicated violent intent during communications with members of
the “white supremacist extremist group Feuerkrieg Division” (US Department of Justice 2020a); a former
law enforcement officer who had purchased illegal weapons and espoused “viewpoints consistent with
racially motivated violent extremism” (US Department of Justice 2021b); and a man who adhered to the
“Boogaloo Movement”—described by the FBI as an extremist militia movement (US Department of Justice
2021a).

Of course, the recent US experience with domestic terrorism is only one example of many—both around
the world and throughout history (see, e.g., Jongman 1992). The recent attack on the US Capitol Building
is a jarring reminder, but it is only one incident in the global context. Incidents of domestic terrorism and
white supremacist movements have been on the rise around the world in recent years (see, e.g., Johnson
2021; O’Harrow, Tran, and Hawkins 2021). The purpose of this Dialogue is to provide space for surveillance
studies scholars to reflect on the interconnections between white supremacy, domestic terrorism, and state
surveillance of domestic extremists. Several of the contributions to this Dialogue reflect on the January 6th
insurrection and other aspects of domestic terrorism in the US (Parker 2021; Tynes 2021; Ward 2021), but
others examine these issues within other countries and contexts, including commentary on surveillance and
policing of right-wing extremism in Canada (Crosby 2021; Millet and Swiffen 2021), the colonial and racist
history of state surveillance in Spain (Jiménez and Cancela 2021), violent extremism and white supremacist
violence in Sweden (Rostami and Askanius 2021), white supremacy and nationalism in the context of Hong

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 339

 Newell: Introduction

Kong’s recent political turmoil (Zhao 2021), and a critique of surveillance-as-method in digital research
into far-right extremist groups online (Finlayson, Osborne-Carey, and Topinka 2021).

Within the context of the January 6th attack, Ward (2021) frames citizen engagement with the FBI’s requests
for crowdsourced tips as a form of citizen participation in state surveillance, motivated by the punitive goal
of bringing wrongdoers to justice. The federal government leveraged participatory surveillance practices
and a public desire for justice in efforts to further its own punitive investigation and, in some cases, tapped
into an online culture that encourages what Trottier (2016) has called “digital vigilantism” and Spiller and
L’Hoiry (2019) refer to as “DIYism” or do-it-yourself culture. In essence, according to Ward, the state has
learned how to “prime its citizens to accept otherwise unpopular surveillance infrastructures.” In conclusion,
Ward argues that: “By allowing citizens not only a means to participate in the surveillance and policing they
themselves are subject to but also enact these surveillance procedures in ways that benefit their own
ideological aims and goals, the state enrolls the public as both subject and actor in a deputization process
which may create consensus for these surveillance practices.” And this argument seems to align with earlier
work in which Nguyen (2019: 334) examined the US Department of Homeland Security’s Countering
Violent Extremism initiatives under the Obama administration, finding that the program worked to
“conscript[] US Muslims into policing their own communities” by incentivizing such work with financial
and other resources. These analyses of citizen participation in state investigations are also linked closely to
the long history of American institutions “work[ing] together to regulate the conduct of American citizens
by activating their capacities for surveillance and communication” that is, turning them into citizen spies
(Reeves 2017: 3). We might also question whether this citizen participation in punitive surveillance practices
offers the “opportunity to participate in the synergy of real-world collective political activity” or whether it
simply reproduces the aims of surveillance capitalism and the continuing “spiral of surveillance and counter-
surveillance” in modern society (Borradaile and Reeves 2020: 274–275).

In this vein, Tynes (2021) questions whether this state-led campaign to recruit citizen spies is working for
or against democratic interests. However, rather than viewing all citizen-surveillance in the January 6th
investigation as participation in a state-led initiative, Tynes argues that “Citizen surveillance had stepped in
to fill a failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies.” Focusing
on the practices of doxing—that is, the practice of “publicly identify[ing] or publish[ing] private information
about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge” (Merriam-Webster n.d.)—Tynes argues
that these online vigilantes were reacting to a manufactured “phenomenal illusion” and that their actions
“destroy[ed] the illusion” of legitimacy the rioters sought to bring to their violent cause. Rather than framing
this instance of peer surveillance as the “the pinnacle… of America’s surveillance society” described by
Reeves (2017), Tynes argues that “the doxxers had turned surveillance back on itself and reinstated morality
into the system, without which democracy might not survive.”

Next, Parker (2021) takes a different approach to examining the January 6th attack—that is, by digging into
the “legal architecture of counterterrorism in the United States,” specifically how provisions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) have been applied in prosecutions for
“providing material support for terrorism” and reflect “racialized surveillance practices.” Parker examines
how surveillance and investigation of domestic terrorists has a racialized bias, and argues that, “should
policing indeed prove to be the best course of action for countering terrorism, preexisting statutes (and the
racialized constraints under which they are enforced) merit further review in the struggle against white
supremacist violence.”

Moving north, to Canada, Crosby (2021) discusses how Canadian security and intelligence agencies have
recently begun to focus more intently on right-wing nationalists and white supremacists as part of their
counter-terrorism efforts, especially as right-wing extremist activity has increased in that country. Focusing
on analysis of documents released under access-to-information requests, Crosby examines how Canadian
security agencies gain knowledge, understand, and define right-wing extremism in Canada. In one of its
most recent moves, and in response to the January 6th attack in Washington, DC, the Canadian government
designated the Proud Boys and twelve other groups as terrorist entities under Canadian law, four of which

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 340

 Newell: Introduction

were defined as “ideologically motivated, violent extremist groups.” However, Crosby exposes concerns
about how state surveillance and counter-terrorism practices might actually further intensify racism and
division within Canadian society rather than stamping out hate and bridging racial divides. Looking to
Canada’s status as a settler-colonial state, Crosby argues that, “the proliferation of hate groups is inevitable
in societies built upon racist institutions of white supremacy and settler colonialism.”

Also focused on Canada, Millet and Swiffen (2021) similarly examine the Canadian government’s move to
include “right-wing extremism” as a specific category of national security concern. Like in the US, Canada
has focused on “homegrown terrorism” for decades, especially after the September 11th attacks in the US,
a designation that has carried implicit links to Muslim communities in Canada and elsewhere. (Similarly, in
the US, homegrown violent extremists [HVEs] are still defined as “individuals who are inspired primarily
by global jihad, but not receiving individualized direction from foreign terrorist organizations” [Wray
2021]). Millett and Swiffen engage criticisms of the recent government response and framing of right-wing
terrorism, placing them within a historical context in which state anti-terror surveillance has
“disproportionately target[ed] Muslim communities.” Such concerns are also echoed in earlier work by
Monaghan (2014: 487) identifying how Canadian security and intelligence agencies have long operated
within the context of a “pre-occupation with Islamic terrorism.” Inspired by these criticisms, Millet and
Swiffen draw on Walter Benjamin’s (1978) theory of law to gain insight into the relationship between law
and violence within the Canadian anti-terrorism context. Ultimately, they argue that Benjamin’s concept of
law as a relation of violence can help reconcile opposing views that, on one hand, the recent push to address
right-wing extremism as domestic terrorism is a positive step away from a singular focus on Muslim
communities and, on the other hand, that “treating white supremacist violence as terrorism does not address”
the racist nature of the state (Millett and Swiffen 2021).

Moving across the Atlantic Ocean, Rostami and Askanius (2021) describe and trace Sweden’s troubled
history with violent right- and left-wing extremism and associated rise in domestic state surveillance.
Indeed, as they note, Sweden has become the “Nordic hub for the extreme far-right movement,” maintaining
a “markedly stronger and more resilient extreme-right movement compared to its Nordic neighbors” and
situated as an outlier in international comparisons of far-right violence. As in Canada and the US, Sweden’s
primary security focus since 2001 “has been on international Islamic terrorism and the rise of domestic
violent Islamic extremism and, later, the steady flow of foreign fighters to Daesh.” And, this “focus… has
persisted even though Sweden, alongside Germany, the UK, and Spain, stands out as having far more far-
right terrorism violence per capita than any other Western European country.” However, as Rostami and
Askanius explain, this has begun to change. For example, in 2019, the Swedish Security Service named far-
right extremism as the greatest terrorist threat to the country, a shift from its prior focus on Islamic
extremism. Ultimately, though, Rostami and Askanius argue that “It remains to be seen… whether the
decision to highlight far-right extremism as a primary national security threat and to direct resources toward
the critical scrutiny and surveillance of these actors will persist beyond the present moment.”

Moving south, to Spain, Jiménez and Cancela (2021) trace the “long history of colonialism, racism, and
state terrorism on the Iberian peninsula.” They argue that this history evinces what they refer to as
surveillance punitivism—that is, “the continuum of data-gathering practises deployed against dominated
populations by public and private actors for the purpose of reinforcing a colonial, racist, classist, and
patriarchal social structure of capitalist exploitation.” Rather than focus directly on the threat of domestic
extremism emanating from Spanish citizens, Jiménez and Cancela frame the Spanish state’s colonial and
empire-building practices as its own form of domestic terrorism. From the Spanish black codes and
associated racialized policing—“designed to structure and institutionalise a system of white supremacy”—
to the deployment of border surveillance technologies in the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla situated
on mainland Africa, Jiménez and Cancela identify how state surveillance and control of minorities and
immigrants continue to work as “mechanisms for drawing the twenty-first century colour lines.” That is,
forms of surveillance punitivism that “can be traced back to [Spain’s] (not yet ended) colonial period.”

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 341

 Newell: Introduction

Moving further east, to the Pearl River Delta in south China, Zhao (2021) argues that white supremacy has,
at least in part, motivated recent pro-democracy movements and protests in Hong Kong throughout 2019.
This recent political struggle has often been framed as a popular movement to preserve Western-style
democracy in Hong Kong, in which protestors prefer the democratic form of government imposed under
British rule to China’s totalitarian, communist regime. However, Zhao argues, “the two are unfortunately
anchored in conflicting racial identities (i.e., Hongkongers vs. Chinese)” and the conflict has led to increased
state surveillance and security enforcement within Hong Kong. Zhao links British occupation and its
colonial legacy to white supremacy (including white worship and white privilege) in Hong Kong society
and links a combination of these factors to continuing “open dislike or hatred of mainlanders” amongst a
majority of the residents of Hong Kong. He also locates these white supremacist mentalities in the varied
treatment of white and Chinese residents of Hong Kong during the protests in 2019. In the end, Zhao argues,
this confluence of factors has resulted in an “escalating political control of Hong Kong by the Chinese
government” that relies directly on enhanced surveillance and other tools of social control. As such, China’s
security crackdown attempts to “forge Chinese identity in the long run” and root out any place for white
supremacist ideologies in Hong Kong’s political rule—a shift that, according to Zhao, “marks the beginning
of the end of white supremacy in Hong Kong (at least in politics).”

Finally, Topinka, Finlayson, and Osborne-Carey (2021) remove us from an explicit focus on physical
geography and national boundaries to, instead, examine forms of computational research methods that
reproduce surveillant methods. They examine and critique what they refer to as surveillance-as-method—
that is, “the use of computational methods to gather data on far-right activities on digital media platforms,
typically in order to track keywords or phrases or to map network connections.” On one hand, they argue
that “surveillance-as-method reinforces an assumption that digital extremism needs only to be seen to be
understood and addressed; that once it is revealed as extreme it will be seen for what it is and wither.”
Rather, such methods might only feed into far-right narratives and amplify their message. (Notably, this
argument is also directly linked to broader critiques of the “marketplace of ideas” and “truth discovery”
theories of free speech that undergird many liberal approaches to freedom of expression and that provide
legal cover for forms of harmful speech, especially in jurisdictions like the US that have strong constitutional
protections for expression [see, e.g., Ingber 1984; Wonnell 1986; Joo 2014; Hassan 2015]). On the other
hand, when scholars conflate surveillance-as-method with surveillance-as-critique, they may also feed into
extremist narratives. The authors argue, in conclusion, that scholars “need strategies for moving beyond
surveillance, integrating findings with theoretically and historically informed analysis of ideologies of the
far right.”

As these contributions demonstrate, the overlapping issues of domestic extremism, terrorist violence, white
supremacy, and state surveillance manifest in numerous ways and in nations and communities around the
world. These issues are not merely issues located within specific nations or bounded by geography and
political borders. However, these concerns are both very local and global at the same time. Additionally, as
I hope this collection demonstrates, reasonable minds can differ in their interpretation and analysis of state
and private (peer) surveillance practices; the role, meaning, and evolution of social movements and protests;
and normative answers to the question of where do we go from here? Ideally, this collection can serve as a
useful resource to surveillance scholars addressing these issues in future research.

References
Ackerman, Spencer. 2013. Data for the Boston Marathon Investigation Will Be Crowdsourced. WIRED, April 16.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/boston-crowdsourced/ [accessed July 29, 2021].
Benjamin, Walter. 1978. Critique of Violence. In Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter
Demetz, translated by Edmund Jephcott, 277–300. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Borradaile, Glencora, and Joshua Reeves. 2020. Sousveillance Capitalism. Surveillance & Society 18 (2): 272–275.
Crosby, Andrew. 2021. Policing Right-Wing Extremism in Canada: Threat Frames, Ideological Motivation, and Societal
Implications. Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 359–363.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. N.d. Oklahoma City Bombing. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing
[accessed July 29, 2021].

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 342

 Newell: Introduction

Hassan, Twana A. 2015. Critiques of the Pursuit of Truth as a Justificatory Theory of Free Speech. International Journal of Human
Rights and Constitutional Studies 3 (2): 171–180.
Ingber, Stanley. 1984. The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth. Duke Law Journal 1984 (1): 1–91.
Jiménez, Aitor, and Ekaitz Cancela. 2021. Surveillance Punitivism: Colonialism, Racism, and State Terrorism in Spain. Surveillance
& Society 19 (3): 374–378.
Johnson, Darin E. W. 2021. Homegrown and Global: The Rising Terror Movement. Houston Law Review 58 (5): 1059–1118.
Jongman, A.J. 1992. Trends in International and Domestic Terrorism in Western Europe, 1968–1988. Terrorism and Political
Violence 4 (4): 26–76.
Joo, Thomas W. 2014. The Worst Test of Truth: The Marketplace of Ideas as Faulty Metaphor. Tulane Law Review 89 (2): 383 –
433.
Merriam-Webster. N.d. s.v. “dox.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dox [accessed July 29, 2021].
Millett, Kris, and Amy Swiffen. 2021. Right Wing Extremism as Terrorism and the Law’s Relation to Violence. Surveillance &
Society 19 (3): 364–368.
Monaghan, Jeffrey. 2014. Security Traps and Discourses of Radicalization: Examining Surveillance Practices Targeting Muslims
in Canada. Surveillance & Society 12 (4): 485–501.
Muhlhausen, David, and Jena Baker McNeill. 2011. Terror Trends: 40 Years’ Data on International and Domestic Terrorism. The
Heritage Foundation, May 20. https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/terror-trends-40-years-data-international-and-
domestic-terrorism [accessed July 29, 2021].
Naylor, Brian, and Ryan Lucas. 2021. Wray Stresses Role Of Right-Wing Extremism In Hearing About Jan. 6 Riot. National Public
Radio (NPR), March 2. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972539274/fbi-director-wray-testifies-before-congress-for-1st-
time-since-capitol-attack [accessed July 29, 2021].
Newell, Bryce Clayton. 2014. Crossing Lenses: Policing’s New Visibility and the Role of “Smartphone Journalism” as a Form of
Freedom-Preserving Reciprocal Surveillance. Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 2014 (1): 59–104.
Nguyen, Nicole. 2019. “The Eyes and Ears on Our Frontlines”: Policing without Police to Counter Violent Extremism. Surveillance
& Society 17 (3/4): 322–337.
O’Harrow Jr., Robert, Andrew Ba Tran, and Derek Hawkins. 2021. The Rise of Domestic Extremism in America: Data Shows a
Surge in Homegrown Incidents Not Seen in a Quarter-Century. The Washington Post, April 12.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/ [accessed July 29, 2021].
Parker, Zac. 2021. Immaterial Support: Whiteness, Stings, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Surveillance &
Society 19 (3): 354–358.
Reeves, Joshua. 2017. Citizen Spies: The Long Rise of America's Surveillance Society. New York: New York University Press.
Rostami, Amir, and Tina Askanius. 2021. State Surveillance of Violent Extremism and Threats of White Supremacist Violence in
Sweden. Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 369–373.
Spiller, Keith, and Xavier L’Hoiry. 2019. Watch Groups, Surveillance, and Doing It for Themselves. Surveillance & Society 17
(3/4): 288–304.
Topinka, Robert, Alan Finlayson, and Cassian Osborne-Carey. 2021. The Trap of Tracking: Digital Methods, Surveillance, and the
Far Right. Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 384–388.
Trottier, Daniel. 2017. Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility. Philosophy & Technology 30 (1): 55–72.
Tynes, Robert. 2021. Democracy’s Savior or Citizen Spy? Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 350–353.
US Department of Justice. 2020a. Las Vegas Resident Who Discussed Setting Fire to A Synagogue With A White Supremacist
Extremist Group Sentenced for Possession of Bomb-Making Components. Press Release, US Attorney’s Office, District
of Nevada, November 13. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/pr/las-vegas-resident-who-discussed-setting-fire-synagogue-
white-supremacist-extremist-group [accessed July 29, 2021].
US Department of Justice. 2020b. Member of the Violent Extremist Group “The Base” Pleads Guilty in Maryland to Federal
Charges for Transporting an Illegal Alien—A Fellow Base Member Whom He Knew Was Planning to Engage in
Subversive and/or Criminal Activity in the United States. Press Release, US Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland,
December 8. https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/member-violent-extremist-group-base-pleads-guilty-maryland-federal-
charges-transporting [accessed July 29, 2021].
US Department of Justice. 2021a. Baltimore Member of “Boogaloo” Extremist Movement Pleads Guilty to Illegal Possession of
Firearm. Press Release, US Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland, March 10. https://www.justice.gov/usao-
md/pr/baltimore-member-boogaloo-extremist-movement-pleads-guilty-illegal-possession-firearm [accessed July 29,
2021].
US Department of Justice. 2021b. Former Georgia Deputy Pleads Guilty in Firearms Case Resulting from Investigation into Violent
Extremist Group. Press Release, US Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Georgia, April 28.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdga/pr/former-georgia-deputy-pleads-guilty-firearms-case-resulting-investigation-
violent [accessed July 29, 2021].
US Department of Justice. 2021c. Six Months Since the January 6th Attack on the Capitol. US Attorney’s Office, District of
Columbia [last updated July 6]. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/six-months-january-6th-attack-capitol [accessed July 29,
2021].
US Department of Justice. 2021d. Two Members of the Violent Extremist Group “The Base” Plead Guilty to Federal Firearms and
Alien-Related Charges. Press Release, US Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland, June 10.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/two-members-violent-extremist-group-base-plead-guilty-federal-firearms-and-
alien-related [accessed July 29, 2021].
Vancouver Police Department. 2011. Stanley Cup Riot Review. http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/vpd-riot-
review.pdf.

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 343

 Newell: Introduction

Wadhwa, Tarun. 2013. Lessons from Crowdsourcing the Boston Bombing Investigation. Forbes, Apr. 22.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2013/04/22/lessons-from-crowdsourcing-the-boston-marathon-bombings-
investigation/ [accessed July 29, 2021].
Ward, Megan. 2021. Participatory Security and Punitive Agency: Acclimation to Homeland Surveillance in the United States.
Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 345–349.
Wonnell, Christopher T. 1986. Truth and the Marketplace of Ideas. UC Davis Law Review 19 (3): 669–728.
Wray, Christopher. 2021. Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Statement Before the House Oversight and Reform
Committee, Washington, DC, June 15. https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/examining-the-january-6-attack-on-the-us-
capitol-wray-061521.
Zhao, Bo. 2021. White Supremacy, Nationalism, and Surveillance in Hong Kong’s Recent Political Turmoil: A Global Perspective.
Surveillance & Society 19 (3): 379–383.

Surveillance & Society 19(3) 344

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.