The mass collection of personal information has not gone unnoticed by governments and regulators. Over the last twenty years or so, regulatory mechanisms and agencies have emerged to protect individuals from the misuse of their personal data and to give individuals a degree of control over their personal information. Consequently, a series of data protection and privacy regulations and agencies have been established and today are overseen by national data protection authorities and legislation. Despite the emergence of regulatory measures fast-moving technological developments have led to new and innovative surveillance applications, often beyond the initial scope and reach of regulation, and often where there is a time-lag before regulation can catch-up. Central to this Working Group is a need to generate new knowledge about the public policy and regulatory environments in which governments, at all levels, develop surveillance related policies and practices, and the extent to which public agencies seek to protect personal information. The specific subtasks of this Working Group are to:

• Identify and assess the range of regulatory measures and institutions in place across COST member counties, including national and EU legislation (e.g. EU Data Protection Directive), designed to govern they way personal information is collected and processed by public agencies and private companies. Central to these largely national developments are debates about legal concepts and definitions of - privacy, data protection, personal information, identity, and access to and freedom of information. Within this thematic it is important to map and assess the compatibility of these divergent measures and the perceived purposes and effectiveness of the agencies and measures.
• Identify and assess the emergence and development of surveillance related policies and practices across COST member countries, including developments in video surveillance systems, and other surveillance practices which give public agencies greater surveillance powers. Here it is important to create comparative international knowledge about the range of surveillance policy and practices being enacted.
• Develop models and frameworks of understanding which help explain the different national approaches to surveillance. Are they to be understood as reflecting national cultural differences, or the existence of different surveillance histories and trajectories, or different commercial pressures, or different traditional institutional arrangements and relations between citizens and the state?
• Assess the policy processes leading to greater level of surveillance in society. These process may include a range of influences, including the media, other national governments (for example USA), and the nature and extent of public debate and consultation.