A Neo-Republican Theory of Just State Surveillance
-
Patrick Taylor Smith
Abstract
This paper develops a novel, neo-republican account of just state surveillance in the information age. The goal of state surveillance should be to avoid and prevent domination, both public and private. In light of that conception of justice, the paper makes three substantive points. First, it argues that modern state surveillance based upon information technology and predicated upon a close partnership with the tech sector gives the state significant power and represents a serious potential source of domination. Second, it argues that, nonetheless, state surveillance can serve legitimate republican ends and so unilateral and private technological attempts to block it may be wrongful. Third, it argues that, despite the serious normative failings of current institutions, state surveillance can be justly regulated and made accountable through a legal liability regime that incentivizes tech company intermediaries to ally with civil society groups in order to safeguard the privacy rights of potential subjects of state surveillance.
Acknowledgements
I owe much gratitude to the workshop ‘The Ethics of Mass State Surveillance’ at Karlrsuhe Institute of Technology. I owe additional thanks to Kevin Macnish, Peter Königs, and two anonymous reviewers.
References
Aitchinson, G. (2016). ‘Three Models of Republican Rights: Juridical, Parliamentary and Populist’, Political Studies 65 (2): 339–355.10.1177/0032321716648339Suche in Google Scholar
Anonymous. (2018). ‘Cooperation or Resistance: The Role of Tech Companies in Government Surveillance’, Harvard Law Review 131 (6): 1722–1741.Suche in Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (2006). Liquid Fear (Cambridge, MA: Polity).Suche in Google Scholar
Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., and Esteves, P. (2014). ‘After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance’, International Political Sociology 8 (2): 121–144.10.1111/ips.12048Suche in Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. (2013). ‘Rights, Republicanism and Democracy’, in A. Niederberger and P. Schink (eds.). Republican Democracy: Liberty, Laws and Politics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press): 253–275.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748643066.003.0011Suche in Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. (1961). ‘Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts’, Yale Law Journal 70 (4): 499–553.10.2307/794261Suche in Google Scholar
Cole, D. (2014). ‘The Three Leakers and What to Do about Them’, The New York Review of Books February 6.Suche in Google Scholar
Currier, J. (2017). ‘70% of Value in Tech Is Driven by Network Effects’, NfX, November 28. https://medium.com/@nfx/70-of-value-in-tech-is-driven-by-network-effects-8c4788528e35 (Accessed July 1st, 2019).Suche in Google Scholar
Diamond, L. (1994). ‘Rethinking Civil Society’, Journal of Democracy 5 (3): 4–17.10.1353/jod.1994.0041Suche in Google Scholar
Hess, A. (2016). ‘The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space’, The New York Times November 30.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoye, J.M. and Monaghan, J. (2015). ‘Surveillance, Freedom and the Republic’, European Journal of Political Theory 17 (3): 343–363.10.1177/1474885115608783Suche in Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. (2018). ‘The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Questions and Answers’, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/06/eu-general-data-protection-regulationSuche in Google Scholar
Johnson, V. (2008). ‘Data Security and Tort Liability’, Journal of Internet Law 11 (7): 22–31.Suche in Google Scholar
Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1994). ‘System Competition and Network Effects’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (2): 93–115.10.1257/jep.8.2.93Suche in Google Scholar
Kisielewski, A. (2016). ‘To Encrypt or Not Encrypt’, The Century Foundation, May 5. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/snowden-v-zakaria-debate-encrypt-not-encrypt/?agreed =1 (Accessed April 25, 2020) .Suche in Google Scholar
Klein, S. and Lee, C.-S. (2019). ‘Towards a Dynamic Theory of Civil Society: The Politics of Forward and Backward Infiltration’, Sociological Theory 37 (1): 62–88.10.1177/0735275119830451Suche in Google Scholar
Laborde, C. (2010). ‘Republicanism and Global Justice: A Sketch’, European Journal of Political Theory 9 (1): 48–69.10.1177/1474885109349404Suche in Google Scholar
Lovett, F. (2010). A General Theory of Domination and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579419.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Macnish, K. (2014). ‘Just Surveillance? Towards a Normative Theory of Surveillance’, Surveillance & Society 12 (1): 142–153.10.24908/ss.v12i1.4515Suche in Google Scholar
Macnish, K. (2015). ‘An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3): 529–548.10.1007/s10677-014-9537-5Suche in Google Scholar
Peterson, A. (2013). ‘LOVEINT: When NSA Officers Use Their Spying Power on Love Interests’. The Washington Post, August 8.Suche in Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Suche in Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2012). On the People’s Terms: A Republican Philosophy of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9781139017428Suche in Google Scholar
Priel, D. (2010). ‘A Public Role for the Intentional Torts’, King’s Law Journal 22 (2): 183–208.10.1017/CBO9781139856478.014Suche in Google Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2009). Force and Freedom: Kant’s Moral and Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).10.4159/9780674054516Suche in Google Scholar
Roberts, A. (2015). ‘A Republican Account of the Value of Privacy’, European Journal of Political Theory 14 (3): 320–344.10.1177/1474885114533262Suche in Google Scholar
Rozenshtein, A. (2018). ‘Surveillance Intermediaries’, Stanford Law Review 70 (1): pp. 91–189.Suche in Google Scholar
Silva, R. (2015). ‘Non-Domination and Political Institutions: The Contested Concept of Republican Democracy’, Brazilian Political Science Review 9 (1): 3–38.10.1590/1981-38212014000200001Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, P.T. (2019). ‘A Normative Foundation for Statism’, Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy Early view 10.1080/13698230.2019.1567207.Suche in Google Scholar
Smith v. Maryland(1979) 442 U.S. 735.10.1128/jb.137.2.735-739.1979Suche in Google Scholar
Solove, D. and Citron, D. (2017). ‘Risk and Anxiety: A Theory of Data-Breach Harms’, Texas Law Review 96: 737.10.2139/ssrn.2885638Suche in Google Scholar
Stahl, T. (2016). ‘Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance and the Public Sphere’, Ethics of Information Technology10.1007/s10676-016-9392-2.Suche in Google Scholar
Stilz, A. (2009). Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press).10.1515/9781400830701Suche in Google Scholar
Taylor, I. (2017). ‘Data Collection, Counterterrorism and the Right to Privacy’, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 16 (3): 326–346.10.1177/1470594X17715249Suche in Google Scholar
Zittrain, J. (2008). The Internet and How to Stop It (New Haven: Yale University Press).Suche in Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (New York: Public Affairs).Suche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the Ethics of State Mass Surveillance
- Mass Surveillance: A Private Affair?
- Did the NSA and GCHQ Diminish Our Privacy? What the Control Account Should Say
- A Neo-Republican Theory of Just State Surveillance
- Privacy in Public: A Democratic Defense
- The Ethics of Police Body-Worn Cameras
- Privacy, the Internet of Things and State Surveillance: Handling Personal Information within an Inhuman System
- Articles
- Economic Exceptionalism? Justice and the Liberal Conception of Rights
- Telic Priority: Prioritarianism’s Impersonal Value
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the Ethics of State Mass Surveillance
- Mass Surveillance: A Private Affair?
- Did the NSA and GCHQ Diminish Our Privacy? What the Control Account Should Say
- A Neo-Republican Theory of Just State Surveillance
- Privacy in Public: A Democratic Defense
- The Ethics of Police Body-Worn Cameras
- Privacy, the Internet of Things and State Surveillance: Handling Personal Information within an Inhuman System
- Articles
- Economic Exceptionalism? Justice and the Liberal Conception of Rights
- Telic Priority: Prioritarianism’s Impersonal Value
