Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

Anna-Riitta Leppänen; Guro  Flinterud; Amy Long; Megan O'Neill; Johan  Boucht; Burkhard  Schaefer; Jarmo Houtsonen

doi:10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3

Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

Anna-Riitta Leppänen, Guro Flinterud, Amy Long, Megan O'Neill (Lead / Corresponding author), Johan Boucht, Burkhard Schaefer, Jarmo Houtsonen

Energy Environment and Society

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

29 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We examine how stakeholders (n=74) in the United Kingdom, Finland and Norway perceive security authorities’ online surveillance capabilities, and how these perceptions form patterns transcending national borders and organisational boundaries. Using a Q-methodological approach, we found variation within and between nations that is usually obscured in the polarised public debates. Furthermore, our stakeholders presented areas of consensus not usually apparent in public discourses. We argue for using awareness of this nuance and areas of convergence as platforms on which to build more effective public debates to further principles of deliberative democracy.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1711-1740
Number of pages	30
Journal	Security Journal
Volume	37
Early online date	9 Sept 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 9 Sept 2024

Keywords

online surveillance
Q-methodology
public debate
consensus
deliberative democracy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Safety Research
Strategy and Management
Law

Access to Document

10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3Licence: CC BY

Final published versionFinal published version, 853 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{2a726812d2964aa4922026ae5fab51e8,

title = "Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway",

abstract = "We examine how stakeholders (n=74) in the United Kingdom, Finland and Norway perceive security authorities{\textquoteright} online surveillance capabilities, and how these perceptions form patterns transcending national borders and organisational boundaries. Using a Q-methodological approach, we found variation within and between nations that is usually obscured in the polarised public debates. Furthermore, our stakeholders presented areas of consensus not usually apparent in public discourses. We argue for using awareness of this nuance and areas of convergence as platforms on which to build more effective public debates to further principles of deliberative democracy.",

keywords = "online surveillance, Q-methodology, public debate, consensus, deliberative democracy",

author = "Anna-Riitta Lepp{\"a}nen and Guro Flinterud and Amy Long and Megan O'Neill and Johan Boucht and Burkhard Schaefer and Jarmo Houtsonen",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024.",

year = "2024",

month = sep,

day = "9",

doi = "10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3",

language = "English",

volume = "37",

pages = "1711--1740",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities

T2 - A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

AU - Leppänen, Anna-Riitta

AU - Flinterud, Guro

AU - Long, Amy

AU - O'Neill, Megan

AU - Boucht, Johan

AU - Schaefer, Burkhard

AU - Houtsonen, Jarmo

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2024/9/9

Y1 - 2024/9/9

N2 - We examine how stakeholders (n=74) in the United Kingdom, Finland and Norway perceive security authorities’ online surveillance capabilities, and how these perceptions form patterns transcending national borders and organisational boundaries. Using a Q-methodological approach, we found variation within and between nations that is usually obscured in the polarised public debates. Furthermore, our stakeholders presented areas of consensus not usually apparent in public discourses. We argue for using awareness of this nuance and areas of convergence as platforms on which to build more effective public debates to further principles of deliberative democracy.

AB - We examine how stakeholders (n=74) in the United Kingdom, Finland and Norway perceive security authorities’ online surveillance capabilities, and how these perceptions form patterns transcending national borders and organisational boundaries. Using a Q-methodological approach, we found variation within and between nations that is usually obscured in the polarised public debates. Furthermore, our stakeholders presented areas of consensus not usually apparent in public discourses. We argue for using awareness of this nuance and areas of convergence as platforms on which to build more effective public debates to further principles of deliberative democracy.

KW - online surveillance

KW - Q-methodology

KW - public debate

KW - consensus

KW - deliberative democracy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85203304900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3

DO - 10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85203304900

SN - 0955-1662

VL - 37

SP - 1711

EP - 1740

JO - Security Journal

JF - Security Journal

ER -

Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Taking Surveillance Apart? Accountability and Legitimacy of Internet Surveillance and Expanded Investigatory Powers (Joint with Universities of Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, University of Uppsala, Police University College Finland and Norwegian Police University College)

Cite this

Stakeholders' Views of Online Surveillance Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

Taking Surveillance Apart? Accountability and Legitimacy of Internet Surveillance and Expanded Investigatory Powers (Joint with Universities of Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, University of Uppsala, Police University College Finland and Norwegian Police University College)

Cite this