Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Cross-national evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance

IF 3.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Amelia C Arsenault, Sarah E Kreps, Keren LG Snider, Daphna Canetti
{"title":"Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Cross-national evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance","authors":"Amelia C Arsenault, Sarah E Kreps, Keren LG Snider, Daphna Canetti","doi":"10.1177/00223433241233960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While conventional terrorism has long been associated with enhanced support for surveillance, scholars have not determined whether variation in the type and outcome of terror attacks, including those emanating from cyberspace, influences public support for these policies. Further, existing studies typically examine public opinion in a single country, thereby failing to investigate cross-national trends in support for surveillance. In this article, we outline a theoretical relationship between cyberattacks and support for surveillance measures and then, through survey experiments conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, explore whether variation in both the type (conventional or cyberterrorism) and outcome (non-lethal or lethal outcomes) of attacks influences support for a range of surveillance tactics. We find that while participants do not base their support for surveillance on attack type or outcome and do not differentiate between surveillance tactics when formulating their preferences, there are considerable cross-national differences in support. Participants from Israel generally responded more favorably to all forms of surveillance, independent of experimental treatment, with British respondents demonstrating high levels of support for CCTV cameras. American respondents, however, were generally less supportive of surveillance measures across treatments, with the differences being most notable in their relative reluctance to support the use of CCTV cameras. These findings have important implications not only for the sustainability of national policies but also for international collaboration to manage emerging risks.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"130 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Peace Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433241233960","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While conventional terrorism has long been associated with enhanced support for surveillance, scholars have not determined whether variation in the type and outcome of terror attacks, including those emanating from cyberspace, influences public support for these policies. Further, existing studies typically examine public opinion in a single country, thereby failing to investigate cross-national trends in support for surveillance. In this article, we outline a theoretical relationship between cyberattacks and support for surveillance measures and then, through survey experiments conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, explore whether variation in both the type (conventional or cyberterrorism) and outcome (non-lethal or lethal outcomes) of attacks influences support for a range of surveillance tactics. We find that while participants do not base their support for surveillance on attack type or outcome and do not differentiate between surveillance tactics when formulating their preferences, there are considerable cross-national differences in support. Participants from Israel generally responded more favorably to all forms of surveillance, independent of experimental treatment, with British respondents demonstrating high levels of support for CCTV cameras. American respondents, however, were generally less supportive of surveillance measures across treatments, with the differences being most notable in their relative reluctance to support the use of CCTV cameras. These findings have important implications not only for the sustainability of national policies but also for international collaboration to manage emerging risks.
网络恐慌与预防性政策:网络攻击对公众支持监控的影响的跨国证据
虽然传统恐怖主义长期以来一直与加强对监控的支持相关联,但学者们尚未确定恐怖袭击(包括来自网络空间的恐怖袭击)的类型和结果的变化是否会影响公众对这些政策的支持。此外,现有的研究通常只考察一个国家的民意,因此无法调查支持监控的跨国趋势。在本文中,我们概述了网络攻击与监控措施支持率之间的理论关系,然后通过在美国、英国和以色列进行的调查实验,探讨了攻击类型(传统或网络恐怖主义)和结果(非致命或致命结果)的变化是否会影响对一系列监控策略的支持率。我们发现,虽然参与者并不根据袭击类型或结果来决定是否支持监控,而且在制定他们的偏好时也不区分监控策略,但在支持率方面却存在相当大的跨国差异。来自以色列的受访者通常对所有形式的监控都比较支持,与实验处理无关,英国受访者对闭路电视摄像机的支持率很高。然而,美国受访者对各种监控措施的支持程度普遍较低,最明显的差异在于他们相对不愿意支持使用闭路电视摄像机。这些发现不仅对国家政策的可持续性具有重要意义,而且对国际合作管理新出现的风险也具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Journal of Peace Research is an interdisciplinary and international peer reviewed bimonthly journal of scholarly work in peace research. Edited at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), by an international editorial committee, Journal of Peace Research strives for a global focus on conflict and peacemaking. From its establishment in 1964, authors from over 50 countries have published in JPR. The Journal encourages a wide conception of peace, but focuses on the causes of violence and conflict resolution. Without sacrificing the requirements for theoretical rigour and methodological sophistication, articles directed towards ways and means of peace are favoured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信