Stahl2016IndiscriminateMass

#digitalethics2024

#digitalethics2024 , #noteType/litnote

Titus Stahl (2016) Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance and the Public Sphere

Bibliographic info

Titus Stahl (2016). "Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance and the Public Sphere." Ethics and Information Technology, 18(1), 33-39. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-016-9392-2.

Commentary

In this paper Titus Stahl presents a critique of mass surveillance. She starts by arguing that traditional liberal approaches focus on individual privacy rights but don't address the broader political harms. Thus Stahl's analysis shifts the discussion from individual rights to the impact of surveillance on political power and the public sphere. The article’s strength lies in its ability to highlight the importance of privacy as a collective good necessary for democratic deliberation. However, one potential weakness, as in many philosophical papers, is that it may not fully address practical solutions or safeguards against the misuse of surveillance technologies by governments.

Excerpts & Key Quotes

Critique of Traditional Liberal Privacy Theories

Page 33:

This article argues that traditional liberal critiques of government surveillance that center on an individual right to privacy cannot completely capture the harm that is caused by such surveillance because they ignore its distinctive political dimension.

Comment:

Stahl underscores a critical limitation of conventional privacy debates, emphasizing that the political aspects of surveillance extend beyond personal privacy. This shift in focus is crucial for understanding the full impact of mass surveillance on democratic societies. This is the fundamental starting point of Stahl's paper.

Tradition theories on privacy

Page 34:

Theories of privacy in the liberal tradition usually depart from one of two normative intuitions: liberal individualist and neo-republican accounts take surveillance to be a violation of individual liberty. Relational accounts take surveillance to be a violation of the individual’s autonomy over his or her social relationships

Comment:

This passage addresses the standard theories on privacy in the liberal tradition. As Stahl shows, they both heavily rely on limiting individual freedoms. However, Stahl will go on to show the unique threats posed by political surveillance and its consequences. Stahl argues that monitoring public political behaviour undermines democratic processes and is thus harmful to public freedom as well as personal freedom.

Neo-Republican Perspective on Surveillance

Page 35:

According to these authors, what privacy protects us from is not interference but domination. Someone is dominated whenever there is someone else who has the option of arbitrarily interfering with their choices, whether this option is taken or not.

Comment:

Stahl appeals to the neo-republican notion of domination to argue against mass surveillance. This perspective is valuable as it focuses on the potential for arbitrary interference. Highlighting the fact that there is the possibility to interfere whether this option is taken or not. The possibility to interfere remains a concern regardless of actual misuse of collected data. This possibility alone gives the governmental institution a certain power over it citizens.

Surveillance as Political Power

Page 36:

New technologies of indiscriminate mass surveillance have made new forms of such 'indirect', reasons-based power available to governments. These technologies allow them to shape the communicative environment of citizen-to-citizen communications.

Comment:

Stahl highlights how surveillance technologies enable governments to exert indirect power by influencing public discourse and relationships. The problem is not the actual interference but the presence of governmental surveillance in almost every situation. Protest groups are no longer able to exclude everyone from their group, but this exclusion is a crucial part of their success. One example Stahl gives is feminist groups; it is crucial that feminist groups consist of only women. Through this surveillance, they can no longer do this. Thus, the government exerts a certain indirect power over its citizens that goes beyond individual privacy invasion.