The article argues that Surveillance Studies in Latin America should analyze violence and insecurity as the central elements in the dynamics of surveillance, but also demonstrates how surveillance acts as a major component on the dynamic of violence in the region. Taking Mexico as a point of reference, the article explores three surveillance regimes: state, social and criminal surveillance in order to identify how the dynamics of insecurity and violence have impacted each. The features of these surveillance regimes implies a particular way to collect information and data, while also suggesting methodological challenges and the need for a specific manner in which to do Surveillance Studies in Latin America.

El artículo muestra que en México la exposición de los jóvenes a ser víctimas de un delito durante el uso de su tiempo libre depende de las actividades que realizan dentro o fuera del hogar, así como de sus estilos de vida; esta relación se encuentra mediada por variables sociodemográficas y adscripciones socioeconómicas. Las actividades en el tiempo libre se vinculan con la posición que ocupa la víctima en la estructura social, esto es, no son sólo las actividades que se realizan en el tiempo libre las que potencialmente definen los procesos de victimización, sino también quiénes las realizan.

The recent violence linked to drug trafficking in Mexico has been dealt with by the federal government by increasing police presence on the streets and involving the army in public safety activities. This has not decreased violence but has increased cases of human rights violation, and the capabilities of non-regulated surveillance and monitoring of the population. Thus, the new internal security law suggests that the police and the army will be able to “develop intelligence activities” by “any information gathering method.” They will also be able to require information from other authorities that they consider necessary to ensure “constitutional order,” as well as the “continuity” and “survival” of State institutions. The law has generated a wide public debate that contrasts two competing discourses.

In 2008, following the assassination of the son of a renowned Mexican businessman, the Mexican government, social organizations, businesses and the media signed the National Agreement for Security, Justice and Legality. This body proposed the creation of a Citizen Identification Card (CIC). Converting the assassination into a ‘big event’, it has generated a ‘moral panic’ in the country, which allowed the justification to put in place mechanisms of control and population surveillance – such as the CIC. In 2009, the federal government announced the creation of an identity card with biometric elements. However, this project had an obstacle: the struggle for databases and collection of data from the Mexican population. This article analyses how the CIC project, in Mexico, has generated a debate on the implications of concentrating on an identification card, using two forms of citizen identification: biometric and territorial reference identity.

No abstract