Well, none of the publication titles on this page contain the word "surveillance". I was able to find an interview (https://medium.com/ethics-models/interview-with-dr-alex-hann...) where she says we're "embedded in a system of racial surveillance capitalism", but doesn't really discuss it or mention any specific times when bad AI caused people to be wrongly surveilled. If you know of any specific explanation that she's provided, I'd be interested to read it.

But the most likely explanation IMO is that Hanna isn't using the term "surveillance" as a pointer to any concrete idea about what will go wrong. It seems to be just an all-purpose explanation for why AI models need to respect her sensibilities.

I didn't mean to imply anything other than what I wrote.

I actually mean to ask the exact question: How does one distinguish between software that can be used for surveillance and software that cannot?

To be more specific, if an ethicist objects to the publication of software that can be used for surveillance, they are assuming that the software can be used for surveillance. How did they arrive at that conclusion?

If you're so curious, I suggest you do what I did and read more of their public statements and writings to satisfy your curiosity.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Of the 16 linked papers/book-chapters a few were not freely accessible.

Of the ones that were accessible, 3 contain the string "surveil" in the body and 1 contains it in the bibliography. None of the references were helpful unfortunately.

Do you have any other links that may answer the question?

I'm not here to spoon feed you.