This article investigates the normative and procedural criteria adopted by European citizens to assess the acceptability of surveillance-oriented security technologies. It draws on qualitative data gathered at 12 citizen summits in nine European countries. The analysis identifies 10 criteria, generated by citizens themselves, for a socially informed security policy. These criteria not only reveal the conditions, purposes and operation rules that would make current European security policies and technologies more consistent with citizens’ priorities. They also cast light on an interesting paradox: although people feel safe in their daily lives, they believe security could, and should, be improved.
BalzacqT (2008) The policy tools of securitization: Information exchange, EU foreign and interior policies. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies46: 75–100.
2.
BalzacqT (2010) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London: Routledge.
3.
BaumanZBigoDEstevesPGuildEJabriVLyonD. (2014) After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology8: 121–144.
4.
BeckULauC (2005) Second modernity as a research agenda: Theoretical and empirical explorations in the ‘meta-change’ of modern society. The British Journal of Sociology56: 525–557.
5.
BedstedBGramSKlüverLRaskMWorthingtonRLammiM. (2011) The story of Wwviews. In: RaskMWorthingtonRLammiM (eds) Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. Oxon, UK: Earthscan, pp. 30–41.
6.
BoswellC (2007) The Securitisation of Migration: A Risky Strategy for European States. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS).
7.
BowyerKW (2004) Face recognition technology: Security versus privacy. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine23: 9–19.
8.
ButlerCDemskiCParkhillKPidgeonNSpenceA (2015) Public values for energy futures: Framing, indeterminacy and policy making. Energy Policy87: 665–672.
9.
CavoukianA (2011) Privacy by design in law, policy and practice: A white paper for regulators, decision-makers and policy-makers. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August.
10.
CohenED (2014) Technology of Oppression: Preserving Freedom and Dignity in an Age of Mass, Warrantless Surveillance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
CreswellJW (2013) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12.
DanezisGDomingo-FerrerJHansenMHoepmanJ-HLe MétayerDTirteaR. (2014) Privacy and Data Protection by Design – From Policy to Engineering. Creta: ENISA.
13.
De GoedeM (2014) The politics of privacy in the age of preemptive security. International Political Sociology8: 100–104.
14.
De GoedeMRandallsS (2009) Precaution, preemption: Arts and technologies of the actionable future. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27: 859–878.
15.
Degli EspostiS (2014) When big data meets dataveillance: The hidden side of analytics. Surveillance & Society12: 209.
16.
Degli EspostiSSantiagoE (2015) Acceptable surveillance-orientated security technologies: Insights from the SurPRISE project. Surveillance & Society13: 437–457.
17.
Degli EspostiSPavoneVSantiagoE (2017) Aligning security and privacy: The case of deep packet inspection. In: ČasJBellanovaRBurgessJPFriedewaldMPeisslW (eds) Surveillance, Privacy and Security: Citizens’ Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 71–90.
18.
DoverR (2008) Towards a common EU immigration policy: A securitization too far. European Integration30: 113–130.
19.
DrewerDEllermannJ (2012) Europol’s data protection framework as an asset in the fight against cybercrime. ERA Forum13: 381–395.
20.
EriksenEOJoergesCNeyerJ and Advanced Research on the Europeanisation of the Nation-State (2003) European Governance, Deliberation and the Quest for Democratisation. Oslo: ARENA.
21.
European Commission (EC) (2014) Special Eurobarometer 380: Awareness of Home Affairs. Directorate-General for Communication. Brussels: EU Press.
22.
European Commission (EC) (2015a) Eurobarometer “Europeans’ Attitude Towards Security.” 53: EU Commission, DG Communication. Brussels: EU Press.
23.
European Commission (EC) (2015b) Special Eurobarometer 432 ‘Europeans’ attitudes towards security’. Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM ‘Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer’ Unit). Brussels: EU Press.
24.
European Council and Parliament (2016a) General Data Protection Regulation. Brussels: EU Press, pp. 1–88.
25.
European Council and Parliament (2016b) DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, Brussels: EU Press, pp. 1–43.
26.
European Court of Human Rights, sentence on Case Roman Zakharov v. Russia, 4 December2015; European Court of Justice, Sentence of the 21st of December 2016 on case (C-698/15).
27.
European Court of Justice (2016) Sentence of the 21st of December 2016 on case (C-698/15).
28.
FalknerRJaspersN (2012) Regulating nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environmental Politics12(1): 30–55.
29.
FriedewaldMBurgessJPÇasJBellanovaRPeisslW (2017) Surveillance, Privacy and Security: Citizens’ Perspectives. London: Routledge.
30.
FriedewaldMWrightDGutwirthSMordiniE (2010) Privacy, data protection and emerging sciences and technologies: Towards a common framework. Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research23: 61–67.
31.
GarnettKCooperT (2014) Effective dialogue: Enhanced public engagement as a legitimising tool for municipal waste management decision-making. Waste Management34: 2709–2726.
32.
HagendijkRIrwinA (2006) Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva44: 167–184.
33.
HempelLOstermeierLSchaafTVedderD (2013) Towards a social impact assessment of security technologies: A bottom-up approach. Science and Public Policy40: 740–754.
34.
HoijtinkM (2014) Capitalizing on emergence: The ‘new’ civil security market in Europe. Security Dialogue45: 458–475.
35.
HuysmansJ (2000) The European Union and the securitization of migration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies38: 751–777.
36.
HuysmansJ (2006) The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
JainAKRossAUludagU (2005) Biometric template security: Challenges and solutions. In: Proceedings of European signal processing conference (EUSIPCO), Florence, 4–8September, pp. 469–472. New York: IEEE.
38.
JasanoffS (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41: 223–244.
39.
JohnsonSDGueretteRTBowersKJ (2012) Crime displacement and diffusion of benefits. In: WelshBCFarringtonDP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 337–353.
40.
KaryotisG (2011) The fallacy of securitizing migration: Elite rationality and unintended consequences. In: LazaridisG (ed.) Security, Insecurity, and Migration in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 13–30.
41.
LandauS (2013) Making sense from Snowden: What’s significant in the NSA surveillance revelations. IEEE Security & Privacy11: 54–63.
42.
LéonardS (2010) EU border security and migration into the European Union: FRONTEX and securitisation through practices. European Security19: 231–254.
43.
LoaderI (2002) Policing, securitization and democratization in Europe. Criminology and Criminal Justice2: 125–153.
44.
LyonD (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society-Computers and Social Control in Context. Cambridge: Polity Press, John Wiley & Sons Publisher.
45.
LyonD (2002) Surveillance studies: Understanding visibility, mobility and the phenetic fix. Surveillance & Society1: 1–7.
46.
LyonD (2007a) Surveillance, security and social sorting emerging research priorities. International Criminal Justice Review17: 161–170.
47.
LyonD (2007b) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity.
48.
LyonD (2014) Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society1: 1–13.
49.
MacnaghtenPChilversJ (2014) The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32: 530–548.
50.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27: 268–291.
MartinAKDonovanKP (2014) New surveillance technologies and their publics: A case of biometrics. Public Understanding of Science24(7):842–857.
53.
Mitchener-NissenT (2014) Failure to collectively assess surveillance-oriented security technologies will inevitably lead to an absolute surveillance society. Surveillance & Society12: 73–88.
54.
OwenRMacnaghtenPStilgoeJ (2012) Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy39: 751–760.
55.
PavoneVDegli EspostiS (2012) Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science21: 556–572.
56.
PavoneVSantiago GomezEJaquet-ChifelleD-O (2016) A systemic approach to security: Beyond the tradeoff between security and liberty. Democracy and Security12: 225–246.
57.
RichardsNM (2012) The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review126: 1934–1965.
58.
SchweizerP-JBovetJ (2016) The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion. Utilities Policy42: 64–73.
59.
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’ power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values33: 262–294.
60.
StraussS (2015) Citizen Summits on Privacy, Security and Surveillance: Synthesis Report. Vienna: ITA.
61.
StraussSNentwichM (2013) Social network sites, privacy and the blurring boundary between public and private spaces. Science and Public Policy40: 724–732.
62.
StreetJDuszynskiKKrawczykSBraunack-MayerA (2014) The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine109: 1–9.
63.
StricklandLSHuntLE (2005) Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology56: 221–234.
64.
SturgisP (2014) On the limits of public engagement for the governance of emerging technologies. Public Understanding of Science23: 38–42.
65.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
66.
TonraB (2011) Democratic foundations of EU foreign policy: Narratives and the myth of EU exceptionalism. Journal of European Public Policy18: 1190–1207.
United Nations (2006) The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Geneva, UN: United Nations, pp. 1–9.
69.
Van LieshoutMFriedewaldMWrightDGutwirthS (2013) Reconciling privacy and security. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research26: 119–132.
70.
WelshBCFarringtonDPTaheriSA (2015) Effectiveness and social costs of public area surveillance for crime prevention. Annual Review of Law and Social Science11: 111–130.
71.
WrightDFinnRGellertRGutwirthSSchützPFriedewaldM. (2014) Ethical dilemma scenarios and emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change87: 325–336.
72.
WrightDFriedewaldM (2013) Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments. Science and Public Policy40: 755–766.
73.
ZednerL (2006) Liquid security: Managing the market for crime control. Criminology & Criminal Justice6(3): 267–288.
74.
ZoellnerJSchweizer-RiesPWemheuerC (2008) Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy36: 4136–4141.
75.
ZwolskiK (2012) The EU and a holistic security approach after Lisbon: Competing norms and the power of the dominant discourse. Journal of European Public Policy19: 988–1005.
