Government Surveillance, Privacy, and Legitimacy

Abstract

The recent decades have seen established liberal democracies expand their surveillance capacities on a massive scale. This article explores what is problematic about government surveillance by democracies. It proceeds by distinguishing three potential sources of concern: (1) the concern that governments diminish citizens’ privacy by collecting their data, (2) the concern that they diminish their privacy by accessing their data, and (3) the concern that the collected data may be used for objectionable purposes. Discussing the meaning and value of privacy, the article argues that only the latter two constitute compelling independent concerns. It then focuses particularly on the third concern, exploring the risk of government surveillance being used to enforce illegitimate laws. It discusses three legitimacy-related reasons why we should be worried about the expansion of surveillance capacities in established democracies: (1) Even established democracies might decay. There is a risk that surveillance capacities that are used for democratically legitimated purposes today will be used for poorly legitimated purposes in the future. (2) Surveillance may be used to enforce laws that lack legitimacy due to the disproportionate punishment attached to their violation. (3) The democratic procedures in established democracies fail to conform to the requirements formulated by mainstream theories of democratic legitimacy. Surveillance is thus used to enforce laws whose legitimacy is in doubt.

Privacy please: Power distance and people’s responses to data breaches across countries

“…Users are more likely to share their data if they trust the firm (Dinev, Bellotto, Hart, Russo, Serra, & Colautti, 2006 ), if they have control over how the firm would use their data (Martin, Borah, & Palmatier, 2017 ; Spiekermann & Korunovska, 2017 ), or if the firm provides them with financial incentives (Gabisch & Milne, 2014 ; Xu, Teo, Tan, & Agarwal, 2009 ). In contrast, users are less likely to share their data if they have higher psychological ownership of their data (Menard, Warkentin, & Lowry, 2018 ; Morewedge, Monga, Palmatier, Shu, & Small, 2021 ), if they have a high need for control (Königs, 2022 ; Xu, Dinev, Smith, & Hart, 2011 ), or if they are concerned about social threats such as bullying or stalking (Krasnova, Günther, Spiekermann, & Koroleva, 2009 ). Nonetheless, except for Chatterjee, Gao, Sarkar, and Uzmanoglu's ( 2019 ) study, which suggests that users who feel more anger (vs. fear) toward data breaches are less (vs. more) sensitive to the scope of the data breach, limited scholarly research attention has been devoted to people’s responses to data breaches.…”

Reconciling Governmental Use of Online Targeting With Democracy

“…The government's collection and analysis of individuals' data gives them a greater ability to influence and control their citizens [74]. This raises concerns about potential misuse of such power, as warned by Königs [51]. Furthermore, it raises questions about who has the authority to shape society and determine its priorities [18].…”

Perceptions of police use of surveillance cameras in Ghana; does procedural justice matter?

“…Also, the use of technological innovations in policing is a controversial topic that has sparked debates across the globe (Gaskell et al, 2004;Ko ¨nigs, 2022). The frequency and scope of innovation adoption in policing have been a subject matter of great concern to persons who are affected by their operations (Wilkinson et al, 2011).…”

“…Also, some scholars have argued that the deployment of surveillance cameras is a breach of the privacy of community members because it relates to the collection of voluminous amounts of data from societal actors (Hynes, 2021;Ko ¨nigs, 2022). Despite being regarded as a means of enforcing compliance by enabling the legal prosecution of defaulters, hence, building a climate of deterrence.…”