Curtail“Curtail” means to restrictWebster’s 15 – Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed., “curtail”, http://www.yourdictionary.com/curtailverbTo curtail is defined as to restrict something , stop something or deprive of something.An example of curtail is when a town wants to stop drunk driving.

That refers only to outright prohibitions, not any action that has the consequence of decreasing surveillanceCaiaccio 94 (Kevin T., “Are Noncompetition Covenants Among Law Partners Against Public Policy?”, Georgia Law Review, Spring, 28 Ga. L. Rev. 807, Lexis)The Howard court began its analysis by examining the California Business and Professions Code, which expressly permits reasonable restrictive covenants among business partners. 139 The court noted that this provision had long applied to doctors and accountants and concluded that the general language of the statute provided no indication of an exception for lawyers. 140 After reaching this conclusion, however, the court noted that, since it had the authority to promulgate a higher standard for lawyers, the statute alone did not necessarily control, 141 and the court therefore proceeded to examine the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 142 The court avoided the apparent conflict between the business statute and the ethics rule by undertaking a strained reading of the rule. In essence, the court held that the word "restrict" referred only to outright prohibitions , and that a mere "economic consequence" does not equal a prohibition . 143

Domestic“US Person” DefinitionNational Security Agency No Date — National Security Agency, No Date (“Frequently Asked Questions,” National Security Agency, No Date, Available Online at https://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/oversight.shtml#oversight3, Accessed 07-07-2015)Federal law and executive order define a U.S. Person as:

a citizen of the United States;an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or,a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.

Surveillance“Surveillance” is monitoring with preventive intentLemos 10 – André Lemos, Associate Professor at Faculty of Communication at Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, “Locative Media and Surveillance at the Boundaries of Informational Territories”, ICTs for Mobile and Ubiquitous Urban Infrastructures: Surveillance, Locative Media and Global Networks, Ed. Firmino, p. 130-132Although they often appear to be synonymous, it is important to distinguish between informational control , monitoring and surveillance so that the problem can be better understood . We consider control to be the supervision of activities, or actions normally associated with government and authority over people, actions and processes. Monitoring can be considered a form of observation to gather information with a view to making projections or constructing scenarios and historical records, i.e., the action of following up and evaluating data. Surveillance, however, can be defined as an act intended to avoid something , as an observation whose purposes are preventive or as behavior that is attentive, cautious or careful. It is interesting to note that in English and French the two words “vigilant” and “surveillance”, each of which is spelt the same way and has the same meaning in both languages, are applied to someone who is particularly watchful and to acts associated with legal action or action by the police intended to provide protection against crime, respectively. We shall define surveillance as actions that imply control and monitoring in accordance with Gow, for whom surveillance "implies something quite specific as the intentional observation of someone's actions or the intentional gathering of personal information in order to observe actions taken in the past or future" (Gow, 2005, p. 8).According to this definition, surveillance actions presuppose monitoring and control, but not all forms of control and/or monitoring can be called surveillance . It could be said that all forms of surveillance require two elements: intent with a view to avoiding causing something and identification of individuals or groups by name. It seems to me to be difficult to say that there is surveillance if there is no identification of the person under observation (anonymous) and no preventive intent (avoiding something) . To my mind it is an exaggeration to say, for example, that the system run by my cell phone operator that controls and monitors my calls is keeping me under surveillance. Here there is identification but no intent . However, it can certainly be used for that purpose. The Federal Police can request wiretaps and disclosure of telephone records to monitor my telephone calls. The same can be said about the control and monitoring of users by public transport operators. This is part of the administrative routine of the companies involved . Once again, however, the system can be used for surveillance activities (a suspect can be kept under surveillance by the companies’ and/or police’s safety systems). Note the example further below of the recently implemented "Navigo" card in France. It seems to me that the social networks, collaborative maps, mobile devices, wireless networks and countless different databases that make up the information society do indeed control and monitor and offer a real possibility of surveillance.