The metabolic consequences of colon cancer surgery may vary by anatomic resection site, but direct comparisons of right- versus left-sided colectomy are limited. To compare the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia after right- versus left-sided colectomy for colon cancer. Retrospective population-based cohort study. Nationwide data from the Korean Clinical Data Utilization for Research Excellence project, linking cancer registry, insurance claims, and health screening databases. Adults aged 30 years or older with histologically confirmed colon cancer who underwent colectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019. New-onset diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia occurring after colectomy. Hazard ratios were estimated with Cox models adjusted for demographics, lifestyle factors, body mass index, waist circumference, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results summary stage, and treatment; Fine-Gray subdistribution models accounted for the competing risk of death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to address residual confounding. Among 8,228 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 58.8 [11.4] years; 4,633 [56.3%] male), 3,253 underwent right-sided and 4,975 underwent left-sided colectomy. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 2.5-5.8), 358 patients (4.4%) developed diabetes mellitus, 1,050 (12.8%) developed hypertension, and 1,167 (14.2%) developed dyslipidemia. Right-sided colectomy was associated with a 20% lower risk of incident dyslipidemia compared with left-sided colectomy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.91; p = 0.005), with no significant differences for diabetes or hypertension. Observational design using administrative data limits causal inference; direct measurements of bile acids, microbiome composition, or inflammatory markers were unavailable; results from a Korean population may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The anatomic laterality of colectomy was differentially associated with metabolic outcomes; right-sided resection was associated with a lower risk of incident dyslipidemia. These findings suggest that surgical laterality may inform postoperative metabolic risk stratification and support incorporating routine lipid monitoring into post-colectomy survivorship care. See Video Abstract.

• Critically examines how smart initiatives, practices, and technologies facilitate mass surveillance. • Exposes gendered surveillance practices and caste-based over-policing. • Showcases the insurgent civil society enacting the ‘right to the smart city’ from below. Smart cities are rapidly emerging in the Global South, and it is critical to understand how they interact with fundamental human rights. In this paper, we shed light on the rights implications of smart city development in India by analysing the ways in which diverse smart initiatives, practices, and technologies contribute to mass surveillance. The findings – informed by 30 interviews conducted with civil society actors – expose the gendered surveillance practices and the enabling of expanded caste-based over-policing. Nevertheless, we identify evidence of an insurgent civil society channeling a variety of civic avenues to disclose breaches of fundamental rights in smart practices, to resist, and to reverse the wrongs when possible – ultimately enacting the right to the smart city in the Global South, from below. We discuss how class, caste, religion, gender and territory have been reinforced in the interactions between ‘smart’ and ‘fundamental human rights’.

As facial recognition technology (FRT) becomes increasingly embedded in policing, concerns and controversies over the lack of consent, misidentification, and mass surveillance grow. This Comment compares how the European Union (EU) and Washington State (Washington) regulate law enforcement’s use of FRT to mitigate risks to individual rights. The EU governs FRT use through a robust legal framework, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which offer protections against these risks. In contrast, Washington’s pioneering statute, Wash. Rev. Code section 43.386, promotes transparency and limits the use of FRT. However, the statute does not provide enforceable rights, as it focuses more on internal oversight than on granting individuals direct remedies. This comparative analysis concludes that while both frameworks attempt to balance government convenience with civil liberties, the EU’s rights-centered model likely provides stronger protections. Accordingly, United States jurisdictions ought to adopt protections modeled on the EU’s rights-based framework to safeguard civil liberties against the risks posed by FRT more effectively.

As democratic governance increasingly relies on digital infrastructure, the boundary between efficient administration and intrusive surveillance becomes increasingly complex. India’s proposals for One Nation, One Election (ONOE) and the creation of a National Voter Database represent ambitious attempts to modernize the electoral system through synchronization and digitization. These reforms aim to conduct simultaneous elections for the national and state legislatures while consolidating voter information into a unified digital database. Proponents argue that such measures could significantly reduce the financial and administrative burden of conducting frequent elections, improve electoral roll accuracy, and enhance governance efficiency. However, critics caution that these reforms may simultaneously create risks related to data privacy, surveillance, and the erosion of federal democratic structures. The ONOE proposal seeks to address these inefficiencies by synchronizing elections across the country, thereby minimizing election-related disruptions and enabling governments to focus on policy implementation. Similarly, the creation of a centralized voter database could streamline voter registration processes, eliminate duplicate entries, and improve electoral management through digital verification systems. If integrated with digital identity systems such as Aadhaar, the aggregation of personal data may enable large-scale monitoring of citizens’ political behavior. These concerns are particularly relevant in light of the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Additionally, critics argue that simultaneous elections could weaken federalism by overshadowing regional political issues.This paper analyzes the legal, political, and technological implications of ONOE and a national voter database. Keywords: Aadhaar Linkage, Data Protection, Digital Governance, Electoral Reforms, Federalism, Mass Surveillance, National Voter Database.

In the early years of the People’s Republic of China, following the retreat of the Nationalist Government to Taiwan and the outbreak of the Korean War, a vigorous campaign against spies and internal saboteurs gained momentum, prompting the production of films known as fante pian (counter-espionage films) between 1949 and 1965. In this article, I challenge conventional interpretations of these films as bound by the generic codifications of spy films. Drawing on a diverse corpus of primary sources, including historical archives, newspaper reports, and film magazines, I unveil the rigorous and critical energies embedded within counter-espionage cinematic experiences of that era. I contend that counter-espionage films not only reflected the impact of political campaigns, as other critics have suggested, but also functioned as a highly-publicized national defense campaign in their own right. To do so, I show how the production, exhibition, and reception of counter-espionage films in socialist China built an embodied network of mass surveillance that monitored and disrupted the secret network of spies. In particular, the multimedia practices—including pre-screening exhibitions, interstitial commentaries, and post-screening forums—fostered a mode of participatory spectatorship, thereby re-enacting the unmasking of hidden enemy bodies and the mobilization of socialist subjects both on and off the screen. This paper aims to enrich our understanding the interplay between socialist subject bodies, media practices, and political movements. It reveals how media practices seamlessly blended every day experiences with the nation’s warfare against spies, thereby contributing to the actualization of these campaigns.

The right to privacy, once conceived as the fundamental right to be let alone, faces an existential crisis in the digital age. The pervasive extraction, analysis, and commodification of personal data by state and corporate actors have transformed privacy from a question of secrecy to one of power and autonomy. This article undertakes a socio-legal analysis of this transformation, examining how jurisprudence is evolving often belatedly to address challenges posed by surveillance capitalism, algorithmic decision-making, and the dissolution of public/private boundaries. It argues that traditional individualistic frameworks are inadequate to protect collective social identities and autonomy. By analyzing landmark case law from 2024 and 2025 across multiple jurisdictions including the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings, the Supreme People’s Court of China’s data rights cases, and significant American jury verdicts this paper charts the emergence of new legal theories. It explores concepts of privacy as trust, group rights to privacy, and statutory torts as mechanisms to recalibrate the balance of power. The article concludes that safeguarding privacy in the contemporary moment requires a paradigm shift: moving from protecting individual secrets to regulating the technological and commercial infrastructures that enable mass surveillance, thereby preserving the conditions necessary for democratic participation and individual autonomy. Keywords: Right to Privacy, Digital Age, Surveillance Capitalism, Algorithmic Governance, Data Protection, Socio-Legal Studies, Autonomy

Smartphones in cyber warfare raise serious ethical concerns due to a number of factors including obscuring the line between civilian and military technology, how they expose non-combatants to harm, and how they lack clear international regulation. The central ethical issues related to the use of smart phones in cyber warfare include: (1) Civilian vs. Combatant Distinction. Smartphones are primarily civilian devices, yet they can be weaponized allowing civilians to engage in cyber-attacks. This development undermines the principle of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. (2) Collateral Damage. Malware or cyber operations launched via smartphones can unintentionally spread to civilian networks, hospitals, or financial systems. Unlike traditional weapons, cyber tools are hard to contain, making unintended harm more likely. (3) Privacy Violations. Smartphones store vast amounts of personal data. Using them in cyber warfare risks mass surveillance, identity theft, and exploitation of private information, raising ethical questions about consent and proportionality. (4) Accountability and Attribution. Cyber-attacks via smartphones are difficult to trace. This creates ambiguity about responsibility, making it harder to hold aggressors accountable under international law. (5) Escalation of Risks. Since smartphones are ubiquitous, their use in cyber warfare lowers the threshold for causing a conflict. Everyday devices could become tools of state-sponsored attacks, increasing the risk of escalation into broader wars. (6) Lack of Regulation. Unlike conventional warfare, cyber warfare has no equivalent of the Geneva or Hague Conventions. The absence of agreed-upon rules leaves smartphone-based attacks in a legal and ethical gray zone. This analysis will identify the ethical and anticipated ethical issues with the use of Smart Phones in Cyberwarfare and the ethical and anticipated ethical issues with identifying smart phones as an important factor in cyber warfare.

Abstract Modern societies sought to control their populations through programs of mass education and surveillance. The origins of this practice had roots in Europe, but were quickly exported to colonial contexts around the world, including the Pacific Islands. While schooling and surveillance are currently often associated with state institutions, historically Christian missions were also critical to the spread of these phenomena in colonized territories. In the territory that became French Polynesia, the first permanent Catholic missionaries arrived in the Mangareva Islands beginning in 1834. Archaeological survey and excavations focusing on the building program of the missionaries has documented an extensive landscape of nineteenth-century stone buildings constructed both by missionary frères bâtisseurs (builder-brothers) and Mangarevan converts. Included among these buildings are several watch towers facing inward among the islands in the lagoon, and separate boys’ and girls’ school compounds in the islands of Aukena and Mangareva. The spatial organization and materiality of these spaces demonstrate the use of techniques of surveillance and schooling to attempt to control the Mangarevan population, including socializing male and female students for expected gendered roles in Christian society.

Digital surveillance has emerged as a central feature of governance in contemporary India, reshaping the relationship between the state, technology, and democratic citizenship. This article critically examines the expansion of surveillance infrastructures across social media platforms, public administration, labour management, and public health systems, highlighting how data-driven monitoring has become normalized within everyday governance practices. Drawing on policy documents, legal developments, and empirical examples, the study analyses the implications of mass, targeted, and lateral surveillance for privacy, freedom of expression, and political dissent. It argues that while surveillance initiatives are often justified in the name of national security, efficiency, and convenience, the absence of robust legal safeguards, transparency, and independent oversight has enabled the consolidation of disproportionate state power. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment and the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 represent important institutional developments; however, their limitations undermine effective protection against surveillance overreach. The article further explores emerging forms of resistance, including sousveillance and civic monitoring, as democratic counterbalances to state-led data extraction. Ultimately, the study contends that without rights-based regulation and accountability mechanisms, digital surveillance risks eroding constitutional freedoms and transforming citizens into data subjects governed through opaque technological systems

Abstract The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) establishes a novel risk-based regulatory model for AI systems, categorising uses into four tiers: unacceptable (prohibited), high-risk (tightly regulated), limited-risk (transparency obligations), and minimal-risk (largely unregulated). This article develops a rigorous conceptual framework to analyse the Act’s logic of risk, reasonableness, and residual harm. It explains how the principles of precaution and proportionality shape the AI Act’s ex ante controls, requiring providers to anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuse and apply measures that reflect the state of the art . 1 We propose criteria for calibrating key requirements (data governance, transparency, human oversight, robustness or cybersecurity) to the severity and uncertainty of risks, drawing on risk-regulation theory (e.g., Baldwin and Black’s responsive regulation and Sunstein’s cost-benefit rationality). The analysis also situates the EU approach within a comparative context, noting alignments and divergences with US and OECD AI frameworks – for example, the EU’s precautionary bans on biometric mass surveillance contrast with the US reliance on voluntary risk management guidelines. Specific high-impact use cases (biometric identification in public spaces, AI in critical infrastructure) illustrate how risk severity triggers stricter controls. The article concludes by discussing policy implications for implementation, including the role of harmonised standards and presumptions of conformity, the interface with parallel cybersecurity regimes (NIS2, DORA) as “risk multipliers,” and the need for further guidance and delegated acts to ensure that the AI Act’s proportional safeguards remain effective in the face of technological change.

Under the conditions of modern international anarchy, a state’s capacity for rapid mobilization takes precedence over adherence to the procedures of “normal politics.” This research proposes a departure from the normative stigmatization of security measures and substantiates the “security state” model, wherein the priority of efficiency and sovereignty protection dissolves the traditional dichotomy between security and liberty. The relevance of this study is driven by the need to reconceptualize the phenomenon of securitization, which, under the pressure of an anarchic environment, is evolving from a temporary instrument into a permanent principle of political space organization. The article aims to analyze the transformation of securitization theory in contemporary discourse and to justify the shift in the status of security practices from “normative aberrations” (“a failure of politics”) to decisions essential for state survival (the “security state”) amidst technological change. The study is based on the methodology of qualitative conceptual analysis and critical synthesis. An interpretivist approach is applied to compare the liberal-institutional view, structural and neoclassical realism, the theory of “Just Securitization”, and the sociological approach of the Paris School. The article proves the theoretical inadequacy of the liberal approach, which viewed securitization as a “pathology,” in the context of the “relative gains” dilemma. Based on neoclassical realism, it is shown that for democracies prone to “underbalancing” and strategic inertia, securitization serves as a necessary tool for resource mobilization. The role of ontological security is analyzed, explaining states’ need for stable identity narratives to preserve their agency. Special attention is paid to the “technological turn”: it is substantiated that the development of mass surveillance and the automation of warfare transform securitization into a “pragmatic act” that precedes political decisions. It is revealed that in the modern world, democracy is forced to adapt to the logic of efficiency to withstand authoritarian threats. It is concluded that the “security vs. Democracy” dichotomy is losing its relevance. The formation of a “security state” model, where the state of emergency becomes permanent, is an inevitable reaction to structural anarchy and technological challenges. Securitization today is not an elite choice but an unavoidable mechanism for preserving sovereignty and ensuring the physical survival of the political nation.

The dominance of algorithms in the social, economic, and political life of the 21st century has created unprecedented structural dependencies, with complex socio-political implications. This research aims to uncover the mechanisms of algorithmic tyranny in social governance, analyze the transformation of AI into a totalitarian tool, and formulate a democratic oversight framework based on cross-national empirical findings. The study uses a critical-realist paradigm with post-qualitative methods, combining reverse engineering of controversial AI systems with critical analysis of over 40 reputable journals and books, and 14 policy documents (2015–2025). A rhizomatic analysis approach is used to explore the multidimensional nature of algorithmic power beyond hierarchical structures. Validity was established through catalytic validity to ensure epistemological and social impact. The research findings reveal regulatory differences across countries: the European Union leads in transparency but hinders innovation, while the US dominates with risks of fragmentation and minimal accountability. China uses AI for social control, and Singapore adopts a pro-business hybrid model. Algorithmic tyranny emerges in recommendation systems that create filter bubbles while judicial algorithms exhibit racial bias. Additionally, there is a totalitarian threat in the use of AI for mass surveillance and political deepfakes, meeting the criteria for “totalitarianism 2.0”. This study concludes with a novelty emancipatory concept to challenge algorithmic tyranny, through the instruments of an ”Algorithm Constitutionalism” and a ”Right to Algorithmic Explanation”. The policy recommendations emphasize the need for a global alliance to balance innovation with the protection of human rights in the algorithmic realm.

Ethical, data security, and resource allocation considerations in AI integration for healthcare during Hajj: task force insights and future directions.

In the era of digital transformation, internet access is no longer merely a technical issue but a question of human rights, equality, and social inclusion. The Internet today forms the foundation for access to education, healthcare, employment, political participation, and information. Global digital inequality has become a serious challenge, as millions of people worldwide still lack stable, secure, and free internet access. This raises a key question: should the right to internet access be recognized as a universal human right, and if so, how can it be implemented and protected in practice? The motivation for this research stems from the urgency of addressing the growing social disparities deepened by the digital divide. This issue gained even more relevance during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when the lack of internet access and digital literacy led to mass exclusion from education and social life. Using a combined methodological approach, the study identifies several emerging challenges: unequal access to digital resources, unclear privacy boundaries, insufficient legal protection of digital users, and ethical dilemmas related to artificial intelligence and data processing. Through comparative analysis of relevant legal frameworks across countries and the examination of international standards such as data protection regulations and cybersecurity laws, this research explores both the legal and social dimensions of digital exclusion. The goal is to examine the problem through legal, social, infrastructural, and ethical perspectives to develop a comprehensive understanding of the possibilities and limitations of formalizing the right to internet access. The results show that the international community is increasingly aware of the importance of digital access, yet legal recognition of internet access as a human right is still not universally accepted. In 2016, the United Nations adopted a resolution condemning deliberate internet shutdowns, but it remains non-binding. Even in countries that have recognized this right, implementation remains problematic due to the lack of operational mechanisms. Furthermore, risks persist — states that guarantee internet access may simultaneously apply censorship, mass surveillance, or digital control. Ensuring access does not automatically mean ensuring freedom or safety in the digital space. Although international law does not explicitly recognize internet access as a human right, it increasingly acknowledges it as a means to realize other fundamental rights. Potential solutions include recognizing internet access as a basic right at national and international levels, establishing public policies to subsidize access for vulnerable groups, investing in digital literacy and infrastructure, and developing independent monitoring of digital exclusion as a form of social discrimination.

This article examines how the transition from analogue to digital dissent has reshaped the strategies, capacities, and vulnerabilities of contemporary civil resistance movements. Building on a mixed theoretical framework that combines classic resource mobilisation theory, Hannah Arendt’s conception of power and public space, Castells’s network society, Bennett and Segerberg’s “connective action,” and critical perspectives on surveillance capitalism and digital authoritarianism, the paper advances the hypothesis that digitalisation simultaneously enhances mobilisation while increasing exposure to surveillance and algorithmic control. Methodologically, the study employs a qualitative–comparative case-study design, focusing on two emblematic movements: the Arab Spring (2010–2011) and Euromaidan in Ukraine (2013–2014). Using content analysis of digital protest materials, NGO and international reports, and specialist academic literature, the article explores the role of social media, mobile technologies, and platform infrastructures in enabling rapid mobilization, networked coordination, and transnational diffusion of protest. The findings are structured on three analytical levels: micro (individual mobilization and personalized participation), meso (network structures, leaderless organization, and platform dependence), and macro (state policies, digital repression, and mass surveillance). Across all three levels, digital dissent appears fundamentally ambivalent: it expands civic power and lowers the barriers to participation while simultaneously generating new vulnerabilities—from predictive profiling and targeted intimidation to shutdowns, disinformation, and dependency on private platforms. The article concludes with normative recommendations for safeguarding digital dissent, including the protection of digital rights as fundamental rights, limiting mass surveillance, preserving net neutrality, increasing platform accountability, and fostering civic tech and international regulatory frameworks. It argues that defending dissent in the digital age is essential to preserving the foundations of democracy and human dignity.

In a global context marked by increasingly complex threats to national security, states face a fundamental dilemma: how can they protect collective security without violating fundamental human rights? This paper examines the intersection of fundamental human rights and national security measures, with a particular focus on their impact on individual freedoms. Specifically, it explores the limitations imposed on civil rights in the name of national security, with special attention to emerging legislation in the fields of counter-terrorism, mass surveillance, and crisis regulations. The findings suggest that, while there is an international legal framework protecting human rights, many of the security measures adopted by modern states often exceed the boundaries of this framework, citing arguments related to the need to prevent external threats. However, this approach raises critical questions about the proportionality and transparency of restrictive measures, as well as their impact on public trust in state institutions. The paper aims to contribute to theoretical and practical discussions in the field of human security, offering perspectives on the need for more rigorous regulation of the balance between security and fundamental rights, in order to protect both public order and individual freedoms.

Surveillance and Predictive Policing: Contested Foundations and Human Rights Impact (2025), constitutes a milestone of legal theorizing on predictive policing in that it synthesizes a decade or more of previous research and develops a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues in data-driven policing.This is an important achievement in light of the fact that the last major book on predictive policing that was situated in the field of law was Ferguson's (2017) The Rise of Big Data Policing which was published almost a decade ago.Ferguson's (2017) work was also, like much of the predictive policing literature, focused on a national case study in general and on the United States in particular.By instead analyzing the European Union and its legal framework, Vogiatzoglou breaks new and important empirical ground in the field.

This research explores the role of Open Finance in strengthening Indonesia’s digital democracy, with a focus on transparency, digital consumer rights, and data oversight. While Open Finance has the potential to increase financial inclusion through the integration of alternative data for marginalized groups, such as MSMEs and rural communities, the practice of massive data sharing risks threatening democratic principles, such as data being vulnerable to mass surveillance, algorithmic discrimination, and weak regulatory accountability. A comparative analysis of the UK (CMA Order) and Australian (Consumer Data Rights) regulatory models highlight the importance of algorithmic transparency, granular consumer control over data, and public participation mechanisms in policymaking. In Indonesia, the suboptimal implementation of the Personal Data Protection Law (PDP Law), the digital literacy gap, and disparities in technological infrastructure are key challenges.

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant potential for governance, public service delivery, and security in Nigeria. However, its deployment raises serious concerns for civil liberties, especially freedom of expression, non-discrimination, privacy, accountability, and due process. Nigeria lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework to safeguard these rights, creating a gap where artificial intelligence-driven surveillance, algorithmic decision-making, and automated moderation can operate unchecked. This study investigates the impact of artificial intelligence on civil liberties in Nigeria, identifies ethical, institutional, and legal challenges, assesses existing regulatory mechanisms, and proposes reforms to align artificial intelligence use with rights protection. Using a doctrinal-analytical method, the study reviews statutes, policy documents, academic literature, and case law. It also analyses selected case studies, like artificial intelligence use in media and judicial contexts, and draws comparative insights from other jurisdictions. Findings reveal that while legal instruments like the Evidence Act, NITDA Act, and NDPR exist, they are inadequate to regulate the opacity and complexity of artificial intelligence technologies. Significant gaps remain in transparency, remedies from rights violations, institutional oversight, and algorithmic accountability. Without proper safeguards, artificial intelligence use in Nigeria risks eroding civil liberties through opaque, unchallengeable systems and mass surveillance. The study therefore concludes that Nigeria must act proactively to balance innovation with rights protection. It recommends enacting a comprehensive artificial intelligence governance law, establishing independent oversight bodies, mandating algorithmic impact assessments, enforcing transparency and explainability requirements, promoting public digital rights literacy, and strengthening judicial and institutional capacity.

Community, Identity & Stability? Building Trust in Facial Recognition Systems for Mass Surveillance