As surveillance-oriented security technologies (SOSTs) are considered security enhancing but also privacy infringing, citizens are expected to trade part of their privacy for higher security. Drawing from the PRISE project, this study casts some light on how citizens actually assess SOSTs through a combined analysis of focus groups and survey data. First, the outcomes suggest that people did not assess SOSTs in abstract terms but in relation to the specific institutional and social context of implementation. Second, from this embedded viewpoint, citizens either expressed concern about government’s surveillance intentions and considered SOSTs mainly as privacy infringing, or trusted political institutions and believed that SOSTs effectively enhanced their security. None of them, however, seemed to trade privacy for security because concerned citizens saw their privacy being infringed without having their security enhanced, whilst trusting citizens saw their security being increased without their privacy being affected.
AmooreL. (2006) “Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror,” Political Geography25(3): 336–51.
2.
BeckU.LauC. (2005) “Second Modernity as a Research Agenda: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations in the ‘Meta-Change’ of Modern Society,” British Journal of Sociology56(4): 525–57.
3.
BeckU.BonssW.LauC. (2003) “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme,” Theory, Culture & Society20(2): 1–33.
4.
BowyerK.W. (2004) “Face Recognition Technology: Security versus Privacy,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine23(1): 9–19.
CokerC. (2002) Globalization and Insecurity in the Twenty-First Century: NATO and the Management of Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Côté-BoucherK. (2008) “The Diffuse Border: Intelligence-Sharing, Control and Confinement along Canada’s Smart Border,” Surveillance and Society5(2): 142–65.
8.
DavisD.W.SilverB.D. (2004) “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America,” American Journal of Political Science48(1): 28–46.
9.
DourishP.AndersonK. (2006) “Collective Information Practice: Exploring Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena,” Human–Computer Interaction21(3): 319–42.
10.
Eurobarometer (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer Series n. 58.0.
11.
Eurobarometer (2005) Social Values, Science & Technology. Special Eurobarometer Series n. 225.
12.
Eurobarometer (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Final report on Eurobarometer n. 64.3.
13.
Eurobarometer (2008a) Data Protection in the European Union: Citizens’ Perceptions. Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer Series n. 225.
14.
Eurobarometer (2008b) Data Protection in the European Union: Data Controllers’ Perceptions. Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer Series n. 226.
15.
Eurobarometer (2009) Confidence in the Information Society: Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer Series n. 250.
European Commission (2004) “On the Implementation of the Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European Industrial Potential in the Field of Security Research, towards a Programme to Advance European Security through Research and Technology,” COM(2004)72 final. URL (consulted May2010): ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/era/docs/communication_security_030204_en.pdf
GaskellG.AllumN.WagnerW.KronbergerN.TorgersenH.HampelJ.BardesJ. (2004) “GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis24(1): 185–94.
25.
GreviG.HellyD.KeohaneD., eds (2009) European Security and Defence Policy: The First 10 Years (1999–2009). The European Union Institute for Security Studies. Paris: Corlet Imprimeur.
26.
HaggertyK.D.GazsoA. (2005) “The Public Politics of Opinion Research on Surveillance and Privacy,” Surveillance and Society3(2/3): 173–80.
HengY. (2006) “The ‘Transformation of War’ Debate through the Looking Glass of Ulrich Beck’s World Risk Society,” International Relations20(1): 69–91.
29.
HotellingH. (1933) “Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variables into Principal Components,” Journal of Education and Psychology24(6): 417–41.
30.
JuelsA.MolnarD.WagnerD. (2005) “Security and Privacy Issues in E-passports,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Security and Privacy for Emerging Areas in Communications Networks, pp. 74–88. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
KnightsD.NobleF.VurdubakisT.WillmottH. (2001) “Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,” Organization Studies22(2): 311–36.
33.
KrahmannE. (2010) States, Citizens and the Privatisation of Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LawleyD.N.MaxwellA.E. (1962) “Factor Analysis as a Statistical Method,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society12(3): 209–29.
35.
LeviM.WallD.S. (2004) “Technologies, Security, and Privacy in the Post-9/11 European Information Society,” Journal of Law and Society31(2): 194–220.
36.
LiberatoreA. (2007) “Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union,” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research13(1–2): 109–37.
37.
LiottaP.OwenT. (2006) “Why Human Security?,” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations7(1): 37–55.
38.
LodgeJ. (2005) “e-Justice, Security and Biometrics: The EU’s Proximity Paradox,” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice13(4): 533–64.
39.
LodgeJ. (2007a) “A Challenge for Privacy or Public Policy – Certified Identity and Uncertainties,” Regio: Minorities, Politics, Society17(1): 193–206.
40.
LodgeJ. (2007b) “Freedom, Security and Justice: The Thin End of the Wedge for Biometrics?,” Annali Istituto Superiore Sanità43(1): 20–6.
41.
LyonD. (2007) “Surveillance Security and Social Sorting: Emerging Research Priorities,” International Criminal Justice Review17(3): 161–70.
42.
LyonD. (2009) Identifying Citizens: ID Cards as Surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
43.
MacCallumR.C.WidamanK.F.ZhangS.HongS. (1999) “Sample Size in Factor Analysis,” Psychological Methods4(1): 84–99.
44.
McKinlayA. (2008) “Emerging EMF Technologies Action on Possible Health Risks,” Annals of Telecommunications63(1–2): 5–9.
45.
MannersI. (2006) “Normative Power Europe Reconsidered: Beyond the Crossroads,” Journal of European Public Policy13(2): 182–99.
46.
MonahanT., ed. (2006) Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.
47.
MullerB.J. (2008) “Securing the Political Imagination: Popular Culture, the Security Dispositif and the Biometric State,” Security Dialogue39(2–3): 199–220.
48.
NATO (2001) “Chapter 2: The Transformation of the Alliance,” in The Strategic Concept of the Alliance, NATO Handbook, pp. 33–58. Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press.
49.
NunnallyJ.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
RasmussenM.V. (2001) “Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies30(2): 285–309.
53.
RasmussenM.V. (2006) The Risk Society at War: Terror, Technology and Strategy in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
RileyT.B. (2007) “Security vs. Privacy: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States,” Journal of Business and Public Policy1(2): 1–21.
55.
SpenceK. (2005) “World Risk Society and War against Terror,” Political Studies53(2): 284–302.
56.
StricklandL.S.HuntL.E. (2005) “Technology, Security, and Individual Privacy: New Tools, New Threats, and the New Public Perceptions,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology56(3): 221–34.
57.
TsoukalaA. (2006) “Democracy in the Light of Security: British and French Political Discourses on Domestic Counter-terrorism Policies,” Political Studies54(3): 607–27.
58.
Van LoenenB.GroetelaersD.ZevenbergenJ.de JongJ. (2007) “Privacy versus National Security: The Impact of Privacy Law on the Use of Location Technology for National Security Purposes,” in FabrikantS.I.WachowiczM. (eds) The European Information Society: Leading the Way with Geo-Information, pp. 135–52. Berlin: Springer.
59.
WebbM. (2007) Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.
60.
WilliamsM.J. (2005) “Revisiting Established Doctrine in an Age of Risk,” RUSI Journal150(5): 48–52.
61.
WilliamsM.J. (2008) “(In)Security Studies, Reflexive Modernization and the Risk Society,” Cooperation and Conflict43(1): 57–79.
62.
WynneB. (2006) “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?,” Community Genetics9(3): 211–20.
63.
WynneB. (2008) “Elephants in the Rooms Where Publics Encounter ‘Science’? A Response to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public’,” Public Understanding of Science17(1): 21–33.
64.
ZureikE.HindleK. (2004) “Governance, Security and Technology: The Case of Biometrics,” Studies in Political Economy73(Spring/Summer): 113–38.
65.
ZureikE.SalterM.B. (2005) Global Surveillance and Policy: Borders, Security, Identity. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
