As I said, the problem is that “surveillance” is heard in many different ways. You have the common public notion of surveillance as having to do with the ways in which police, say, would seek out or keep watch over some suspect, or, equally, intelligence services might do the same sort of thing. That requires identifiable information to be used for that kind of surveillance, and that is a form of surveillance.
As I pointed out, the Public Health Agency of Canada does surveillance too. They are doing public health surveillance. They're using the large datasets, as we've heard, and that, too, is surveillance.
My argument would be that we need to broaden our definition of surveillance to include such things. The definition I was using—any focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for the sake of some purpose, such as influence, management, control or protection—serves as a definition that covers all the range of surveillance activities that we see today.
Increasingly, of course, as both my other colleagues have commented, the move over the last few decades has been toward using larger and larger datasets covering larger and larger groups in a population, and surveillance is being done at different levels, but my point really was that, at whatever level, there need to be very serious concern and specific regulatory changes to keep up with the changes in technology that allow for these different sorts of surveillance.