# government surveillance program



## Illyuminator

Looking to translate the phrase 'government surveillance programme'. I've tested about 15 different variants on google (программа государственного наблюдения, государственная программа наблюдения, государственная программа шпионажа т.д.) but none seem to get many hits so I'm really unsure how to translate this one.


----------



## Maroseika

It is impossible to translate such a term without the context. Can you provide it? Or at least explain what is this programme about.


----------



## Illyuminator

An English mistake there. It should be 'program'. I mean as in a program of this sort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), or the NSA surveillance program revealed by Edward Snowden.


----------



## Maroseika

I'm afraid context is still not sufficient. There is a lot of information in the article you linked, but it still unclear what exact programme you mean. Can you explain what exactly programme ancd of what country you mean? Maybe there is already a stable way to translate it into Russian.

By the way, шпионаж is hardly applicable here, because in Russian language шпион, шпионаж have negative connotation and are used mostly in point of the aliens. Otherwise it is разведчик, разведывательная деятельность.


----------



## Illyuminator

the problem is I don't want to mention an exact programme, I want to talk about them as a group. As in "the government surveillance programs that exist in Russia, China and the U.S. today are larger than they have ever been in the past." 

Here is a list of things that would be classed as 'government surveillance programs' in English, for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects


----------



## Maroseika

Illyuminator said:


> the problem is I don't want to mention an exact programme, I want to talk about them as a group. As in "the government surveillance programs that exist in Russia, China and the U.S. today are larger than they have ever been in the past."



I'm afraid your link doesn't help, as it is too general. If this is not a proper name of some exact programme, then maybe you can explain (in your own and short words) what is the object of the surveillance. Depending on that,   surveillance can be translated as наздзор, контроль, слежка and many others.


----------



## Illyuminator

Maroseika said:


> I'm afraid your link doesn't help, as it is too general. If this is not a proper name of some exact programme, then maybe you can explain (in your own and short words) what is the object of the surveillance. Depending on that,   surveillance can be translated as наздзор, контроль, слежка and many others.



Surveillance programs aim to collect massive amounts of personal data on citizens of the home country and other countries, nominally so as to prevent terrorist attacks, cyber espionage and other threats to national security. However in practice they are often used to spy on political opposition or to protect the government in some way as well. Typically they do this by listening to phone calls, reading emails etc., often without the consent of the parties being spied on. 

The film 'The Lives of Others', for example, is a very good depiction of surveillance.


----------



## gryaz'

Illyuminator said:


> the problem is I don't want to mention an exact programme, I want to talk about them as a group. As in "the government surveillance programs that exist in Russia, China and the U.S. today are larger than they have ever been in the past."
> 
> Here is a list of things that would be classed as 'government surveillance programs' in English, for reference



The article you link to has a link for a Russian-language version, which should be useful ...


----------



## Maroseika

Illyuminator said:


> Surveillance programs aim to collect massive amounts of personal data on citizens of the home country and other countries, nominally so as to prevent terrorist attacks, cyber espionage and other threats to national security. However in practice they are often used to spy on political opposition or to protect the government in some way as well. Typically they do this by listening to phone calls, reading emails etc., often without the consent of the parties being spied on.



I think such system can be called государственная система контроля. But it will not be clear out of context, what kind of контроль is meant. Maybe to add система контроля за безопасностью в киберпространстве or система антитеррористического контроля or система сбора информации о гражданах and so forth.


----------



## 4elsik

Illyuminator said:


> the problem is I don't want to mention an  exact programme, I want to talk about them as a group. As in "the  _government surveillance programs_ that exist in Russia, China and the  U.S. today are larger than they have ever been in the past."




This is a really complicated thing and depends on the context. Trying to speak generally as in the example, I'd probably use _государственные мероприятия по обеспечению национальной безопасности_.
_
Государственные мероприятия _should stand for _government processes.
__Обеспечение национальной безопасности_ should be _national security protection_.

So literraly the whole thing should sound like _government processes_ _aimed to national security protection.

_And _государственные мероприятия по обеспечению национальной безопасности _can imply everything listed above by Maroseika


> _система контроля за безопасностью в киберпространстве_ _
> система  антитеррористического контроля_ _
> система сбора информации о гражданах_


 icluding your examples like_ listening to phone calls, reading emails etc.
_


----------



## Sobakus

Based on this article I think "(государственная) программа массовой слежки" is a good option. _Слежка_ adds a somewhat malicious shade of meaning, as opposed to _наблюдение_ which is a more passive kind of surveillance.


----------



## 4elsik

Sobakus said:


> Based on this article I think "(государственная) программа массовой слежки" is a good option. _Слежка_ adds a somewhat malicious shade of meaning, as opposed to _наблюдение_ which is a more passive kind of surveillance.


I consider _a somewhat malicious _as something _above the law_  (and you imply exactly the same especially with the given article, don't you?). So after a brief look on  the topic I come to a conclusion that any surveillance program is  working based on the law. Any of the three countries in the example of the fifth post —  Russia, China, the US — do have the proper law which allows them to use  different methods of surveillance, which are publicly known or not. But  the list the topic starter gives in the same post of the thread  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects)  shows that Russian and Chinese programs are aimed to their own  countries unlike some of those of the US, which can target anything in  or out of the country (in virtue of technological capacity only, I  guess, but that doesn't matter).

Having that in mind I would disagree with your option, Sobakus. I only find it (the word _слежка_) applicable to the US in the context given in the fifth post.


----------



## Sobakus

I'm surprised that you single out the US surveillance programme based on lawfulness after stating that all such programmes are lawful, as well as mentioning post #5 which clearly treats all such programmes equally. I'm not aware of any US law that makes surveillance on foreign citizens unlawful. But that's honestly irrelevant, because the maliciousness of such programmes is not in such formality as their lawfulness, but in their being morally (un)acceptable, (un)democratic and a (non-)threat to society. Mass surveillance is a hot topic in Western media right now and the expression already carries a distinct negative connotation regardless of mass surveillance having its share of supporters; I believe this is also the reason for the choice of words in the Russian article, which I think is appropriate and might suit the OP.


----------



## Kirill V.

Hi, Illyuminator!
In negative contexts (if we want to condemn such programs) we usually say: _слежка государства за гражданами_
In neutral contexts I have no idea what they call it, maybe something like _контроль электронных коммуникаций_


----------



## 4elsik

Sobakus said:


> I'm surprised that you single out the US surveillance programme based on lawfulness after stating that all such programmes are lawful, as well as mentioning post #5 which clearly treats all such programmes equally. I'm not aware of any US law that makes surveillance on foreign citizens unlawful. But that's honestly irrelevant, because the maliciousness of such programmes is not in such formality as their lawfulness, but in their being morally (un)acceptable, (un)democratic and a (non-)threat to society. Mass surveillance is a hot topic in Western media right now and the expression already carries a distinct negative connotation regardless of mass surveillance having its share of supporters; I believe this is also the reason for the choice of words in the Russian article, which I think is appropriate and might suit the OP.



Этот пример с программами трех стран похож на отрывок из какой-либо газетной статьи. 

И коль скоро в упомянутом списке подобных "программ" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects) среди оных России и Китая нет тех, мероприятия которых распространяются на другие гос-ва (видимо, в силу ряда обстоятельств), то, полагая,что в контексте такой газетной статьи речь идет именно о программах слежки глобального масштаба, особенно с учетом ссылки автором на программы типа ПРИЗМ США, действие которых распространяется на многие страны, упоминание 'слежки' представляется мной в данном случае сомнительным. Вижу это слово применительным только к США в данном контексте, поскольку сведениями о подобных российских и китайских программах глобальных масштабов, или хотя бы распространяющихся на одну любую другую страну, кроме как своей собственной, мы не располагаем.


----------



## Illyuminator

Do people have a problem with 'слежка' because it specifically implies surveillance of foreign citizens, or are they objecting to it because Russian and Chinese programs are morally 'better', being directed at home, and therefore undeserving of a negative term? I'm not sure that's true. Intruding on the privacy of your own citizens would be as much of a problem, according to this author I'm translating, as intruding on the privacy of foreign nationals. The result of this being I would still be happy using a negatively connotative word to describe Russian and Chinese programs, as long as the word doesn't specifically mean spying on foreign nationals.


----------



## Maroseika

Illyuminator said:


> Do people have a problem with 'слежка' because it specifically implies surveillance of foreign citizens, or are they objecting to it because Russian and Chinese programs are morally 'better', being directed at home, and therefore undeserving of a negative term?



The word слежка definetely has negative connotation, irrespective of its object - be it foreign or own citizens.


----------



## Sobakus

Illyuminator said:


> Do people have a problem with 'слежка' because it specifically implies surveillance of foreign citizens, or are they objecting to it because Russian and Chinese programs are morally 'better', being directed at home, and therefore undeserving of a negative term? I'm not sure that's true. Intruding on the privacy of your own citizens would be as much of a problem, according to this author I'm translating, as intruding on the privacy of foreign nationals. The result of this being I would still be happy using a negatively connotative word to describe Russian and Chinese programs, as long as the word doesn't specifically mean spying on foreign nationals.



*4elsik*'s reasoning seems to be that since the most notorious US surveillance programme the article using the word _слежка_ deals with is PRISM, and PRISM targets foreign nationals, and other governments don't seem to have such programmes, therefore the word _слежка_ can only be applied to programmes that target foreign nationals. In short, (s)he defines the word by the way it's used in a single article, and frankly I can only see this testifying to your latter suggestion.


----------

