Surveillance Types and Methods Used in Terrorism Investigations
This paper examines the major surveillance types and methods employed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in counterterrorism and criminal investigations. It defines surveillance broadly and then explores five specific techniques: roving wiretaps authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used for reconnaissance, satellite systems for large-scale intelligence gathering, biometric tools such as facial recognition and iris scanning, and still photography using digital and film cameras. For each method, the paper explains how the technique works, its legal or operational context, and when it is most appropriately deployed against terrorist threats.
- Introduction: Defines surveillance and its major technique categories
- Roving Wiretaps: Legal framework and use of roving electronic surveillance
- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): UAV types and reconnaissance applications against terrorists
- Satellite Surveillance: Imaging and SIGINT satellites for large-scale intelligence
- Biometrics: Physiological identification tools in surveillance contexts
- Still Photography: Camera-based documentation in field surveillance operations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each surveillance type is treated as a discrete section with a clear definition, operational explanation, and specific use-case context, making the paper easy to follow and reference.
- The paper grounds abstract technologies in concrete legal frameworks, such as the USA PATRIOT Act's modification of FISA for roving wiretaps, adding analytical depth beyond simple description.
- Specific technical details — such as the Key Hole satellite series resolving objects as small as five inches from orbit, or the distinction between small UAVs like the Raven and larger ones like the Predator — demonstrate engagement with source material rather than surface-level summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a taxonomic survey structure: it establishes a broad definition in the introduction, then systematically breaks the subject into distinct categories. Each category is analyzed for mechanism, legal/operational context, and situational applicability. This approach allows the writer to cover a technically complex topic accessibly while still meeting academic citation expectations.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction defining surveillance and noting its main forms. Five body sections follow — roving wiretaps, UAVs, satellites, biometrics, and still photography — each organized around how the method works and when it should be used. There is no standalone conclusion; the final section on photography closes the survey. Four sources are cited in APA format throughout.
Introduction
Surveillance can be defined simply as the observations carried out to obtain information. This simple description encompasses a wealth of methods and techniques that function as forms of surveillance, several of which are recognizable through common knowledge shaped by popular culture and public discourse. The most common techniques include technical surveillance (typically covert audio or video recording), electronic surveillance (keystroke logging, digital observation), and many others (Davis, McGarrity & Williams, 2014). Almost anyone can engage in surveillance when properly educated and trained; those using different surveillance methods range from private investigators collecting evidence for civil court proceedings to federal officials working to protect the public from criminals and terrorists.
Roving Wiretaps
Federal law enforcement officials have the power, subject to court approval, to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps on individuals suspected of federal crimes. A "roving" wiretap permits law enforcement officials to "follow" an individual and legally intercept that individual's communications with a single court order, regardless of whether the subject attempts to avoid surveillance by switching telephones or other communication devices (Bjelopera, 2013). Before roving wiretaps became possible, federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors had to expend considerable resources and time obtaining a separate wiretap order for every telephone a subject used during an investigation. This frequently led to the loss of valuable evidence through missed wiretap conversations connected to the illegal activity under observation.
Prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, the concept underlying roving wiretaps did not apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The USA PATRIOT Act amended the electronic surveillance provisions of FISA to permit government officials to maintain surveillance even when the monitored subject switched from a device — such as a telephone associated with one service provider — to a device associated with a different provider.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.