Stakeholders’ views of online surveillance capabilities: a comparative analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway

IF 0.2 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Anna-Riitta Leppänen, Guro Flinterud, Amy Long, Megan O’Neill, Johan Boucht, Burkhard Schaefer, Jarmo Houtsonen
{"title":"Stakeholders’ views of online surveillance capabilities: a comparative analysis of the debates in UK, Finland and Norway","authors":"Anna-Riitta Leppänen, Guro Flinterud, Amy Long, Megan O’Neill, Johan Boucht, Burkhard Schaefer, Jarmo Houtsonen","doi":"10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We examine how stakeholders (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47023,"journal":{"name":"Security Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

利益相关者对在线监控能力的看法:英国、芬兰和挪威辩论的比较分析
我们研究了英国、芬兰和挪威的利益相关者(n = 74)如何看待安全部门的在线监控能力,以及这些看法如何形成超越国界和组织边界的模式。利用 Q 方法,我们发现了国家内部和国家之间的差异,这些差异通常在两极分化的公开辩论中被掩盖。此外,我们的利益相关者还提出了在公共讨论中通常并不明显的共识领域。我们主张利用对这种细微差别和共识领域的认识作为平台,在此基础上开展更有效的公开辩论,以推进协商民主的原则。
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
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The?Security Journal?is a dynamic publication that keeps you informed about the latest developments and techniques in security management. Written in an accessible style it is the world's premier peer-reviewed journal for today's security researcher and professional. The journal is affiliated to ASIS International and has an advisory board which includes representatives from major associations expert practitioners and leading academics.The?Security Journal?publishes papers at the cutting edge in developing ideas and improving practice focusing on the latest research findings on all aspects of security. Regular features include personal opinions and informed comment on key issues in security as well as incisive reviews of books videos and official reports.What are the benefits of subscribing?Learn from evaluations of the latest security measures policies and initiatives; keep up-to-date with new techniques for managing security as well as the latest findings and recommendations of independent research; understand new perspectives and how they inform the theory and practice of security management.What makes the journal distinct?Articles are jargon free and independently refereed; papers are at the cutting edge in developing ideas and improving practice; we have appointed an Advisory Board which includes representatives from leading associations skilled practitioners and the world's leading academics.How does the journal inform?The?Security Journal?publishes innovative papers highlighting the latest research findings on all aspects of security; incisive reviews of books videos and official reports; personal opinions and informed comment on key issues.Topics covered include:fraudevaluations of security measuresshop theftburglaryorganised crimecomputer and information securityrepeat victimisationviolence within the work placeprivate policinginsuranceregulation of the security industryCCTVtaggingaccess controlaviation securityhealth and safetyarmed robberydesigning out crimesecurity staffoffenders' viewsPlease note that the journal does not accept technical or mathematic submissions or research based on formulas or prototypes.
×
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