The Nexus of Logistics and Social Control: Mass Surveillance in the Digital Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern logistical technologies—such as the Internet of Things (IoT), delivery drones, and blockchain—are increasingly employed as tools for mass surveillance, raising significant concerns about individual privacy. The traceability of logistical flows facilitates not only the tracking of products but also extends to individuals, generating data that is frequently repurposed to control or influence behavior. In smart cities, for example, citizens’ movements and consumption habits are monitored in real-time, further undermining the notion of anonymity. This trend reflects a model of “consensual surveillance,” where individuals willingly exchange personal data for perceived benefits, such as convenience or customized services, often without fully grasping the extent of its commercial exploitation. Mass surveillance raises pressing ethical issues, including risks of algorithmic bias, discrimination, and increased social control by governments or corporations. While regulatory frameworks aim to protect individual rights, they frequently struggle to keep pace with the innovation in logistical technologies. Addressing the societal challenges posed by mass surveillance requires a delicate balance between fostering technological progress and preserving fundamental liberties. Achieving this balance calls for the integration of ethical principles and the development of transparent supply chain solutions that prioritize privacy protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".