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

IF 0.2 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Security Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1057/s41284-024-00443-3

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

{"title":"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","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":"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.","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":"{\"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\":\"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.\",\"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}","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

摘要

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。

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

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Security Journal

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.