European
Public Rejects Privacy-Security Trade-off
More ploughing through the SURPRISE results on European public’s
attitudes towards Security-Oriented Surveillance Technologies (SOST) finds that
few Europeans are willing
to give up privacy in favour of more security.
This
nine-nations European study on the European public’s attitudes towards Smart
CCTV, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), and Smartphone Location Tracking (SLT) finds
that, while there are national differences, and SOST-differences, few people
are willing to give up privacy in favour of more security.
‘In this study, participants who recognised the need to give up some of their privacy for better security were more willing to accept the SOST only in the case of DPI. We did not find similar results in the case of Smart CCTV and SLT.’ (Pavone et al. 2015, p.133)
This stands in contrast to statements by the UK
Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in their recent Privacy
And Security Inquiry which
invokes the will of the UK public as erring on the side of all bulk data
collection (including the content of communications, meta-data, and phone
location data) in order to prevent terrorism. The ISC states:
‘we do not subscribe to the point of view that
it is acceptable to let some terrorist attacks happen in order to uphold the
individual right to privacy – nor do we believe that the vast majority of the
British public would’ (p.36).
The UK
was one of the nations in the nine-nations European study. However, the UK
public was only asked to consider Smart CCTV and DPI. Further research into the
UK public’s attitudes to surveillance of other data types would be
useful.
Further
research into why different nations’ publics largely refuse this
privacy-security trade-off, whether this is influenced by public discourses on
surveillance and dataveillance, and the precise nature of these discourses,
would be valuable.
Also needed is research into whether intelligence agencies and politicians
listen to these public views on their privacy and their security, rather than
invoking a mythical public opinion unsupported by data or research.
No comments:
Post a Comment