Introduction

Issues of government surveillance are becoming at the forefront of academic interest (Muir 2015; Rajamaki et al. 2015; Tryfonas et al. 2016; Cropf and Bagwell 2016; Ryan 2018; Rider 2018; Kim and Atkin 2019; Gstrein 2020). This surge in interest is primarily due to three trends. First, there is an emphasis on e-government, where citizen–government transactions are carried out online (Lips et al. 2009). Second, there is the increasing use of smart cards and other portable information and transaction devices issued by the government. Thirdly, the government's intensified fight against terrorism, particularly post-9/11, contributes to this focus (Lim et al. 2009). In addition, some authors argue that government surveillance is much more widespread than many realize (McKee 2011).Footnote 1

The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018 impacted the landscape of surveillance within the European Union. The GDPR is a key regulation in Europe that aims to protect the privacy rights of its citizens and regulate how organizations handle their personal data. It also harmonizes the data protection laws across the EU and influences how the public perceives surveillance practices. However, the GDPR does not cover all types of data processing, such as those for national security or law enforcement purposes, which are subject to other legal instruments and national rules. These rules must still respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and follow the general principles and objectives of the GDPR. The GDPR also sets strict guidelines and safeguards for law enforcement agencies to process personal data for surveillance purposes, ensuring that they are necessary, proportionate, and transparent.

This article explores public attitudes in various European countries towards two specific categories of government surveillance: warranted and unwarranted. Warranted surveillance is legally justified for reasons such as law enforcement and national security, while unwarranted surveillance pertains to surveillance activities that may infringe upon personal privacy rights and freedoms. Our primary focus is on government surveillance in the context of law enforcement and national security. These two sectors represent critical areas where the balance between security needs and privacy rights is continually negotiated and contested. Utilizing data from the International Social Survey Programme, this study examines public attitudes towards different types of government surveillance, utilizing regression analysis to reveal influential variables on these attitudes. The study finds notable differences in support for government surveillance between Western and Nordic countries compared to post-Communist countries.

This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of literature on government surveillance by offering an analysis that takes into account different categories of surveillance, and regional differences within Europe. Ultimately, it seeks to answer the question: “Where does the European public draw the line between warranted and unwarranted government use of surveillance technologies?”

The paper's structure is as follows: the first section reviews the literature on government surveillance. The second section explains the methodology, including the data sources, variables, and statistical methods used. The third section presents and interprets the results, and the final section offers a conclusion and implications for policy and future research.

Government surveillance in literature

A number of scientific studies have addressed the issue of surveillance, from many perspectives. It is possible to mention the legal aspect when discussing the issue of protection of personal rights, in which government surveillance intervenes (Bernstein 1996; Henderson 2002; Slobogin 2017). For example, some studies have concluded that while there are exceptions at the municipal level that prioritize the public interest over the protection of privacy, there is a growing interest at the international level in the protection of personal rights (Robis 2014).Footnote 2

The researchers also looked at the relationship between surveillance and policy activity. Research from the United States through survey data shows that those who oppose government policies and perceive government is monitoring their activity on the Internet are more involved in online politics (Krueger 2005), as well as in offline political participation (Krueger 2008). In the United States, academics also examined individual beliefs and concerns about government surveillance on the Internet and compared it with users in Italy. They concluded that Italians have less Internet privacy concerns than Americans, lower perceived need for government surveillance but higher concerns about government intrusion (Dinev et al. 2006). Researchers using individual-level data from US are also interested in what influences attitudes to government surveillance. Social awareness positively influences the perceived need for government surveillance, while Internet literacy has a negative impact. In addition, Internet literacy has a positive effect on government intrusion concerns (Dinev 2008), and these concerns are positively related to privacy concerns (Dinev et al. 2008). That social awareness and Internet self-efficacy are what affects the perceived need for government surveillance and government intrusion concerns, the same author proposes in another study (Xu and Dinev 2012). Privacy concerns also influence the acceptance of surveillance, as revealed by an Australian survey (Kininmonth et al. 2018; Thompson et al. 2020). Further research from the United States with the help of a panel survey added that the acceptability of government surveillance is influenced by the already-mentioned surveillance concerns, as well as the perceived transparency, regulatory needs, and ideology of the respondent (Nam 2019).

Research from the United States, using two embedded experiments in a national survey, revealed that political activities related to violence and legitimate activities in opposition to the president have the greatest impact on surveillance perceptions (Best and Krueger 2008). As for the United States, after 9/11, the attention of intelligence services focused on monitoring American Muslims. Research on this issue has revealed that one-fifth of American Muslim participants have personal experience with government surveillance and have expressed concern. At the same time, these Muslims also adjusted their behavior to avoid suspicion and future government surveillance (O’Connor and Jahan 2014).

The issue of government surveillance is also examined in an international context.Footnote 3 Some studies also address the issue of surveillance at the local level.Footnote 4 Government surveillance is viewed in the literature not only from a security or public opinion points of view, but also, for example, due to the issue of gambling (Miller et al. 2016) or how government surveillance impacts the automotive industry (Cavazos et al. 2018). The enumeration can continue how media inform about exposing government intrusion (Johnson 2017; Connor and Doan 2021), as well as what are the philosophical aspects of privacy into which government surveillance penetrates (Macnish 2018). The issue of government surveillance was also discussed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially with regard to the use of cell phone applications developed to control the pandemic (Bernard et al. 2020).

A review of the literature shows that most research has been geographically focused on the United States and there are only a minimal number of studies that have addressed the issue of government surveillance in Europe. Although a number of studies have relied on individual-level data, there is an absence of studies that have looked at how different political and socioeconomic variables affect the government's right to conduct surveillance. For these reasons, the research is thus focused on the European area while choosing a design using data from opinion polls and statistical methods.

Methodology

Data

For the purposes of this article, data from The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) are used. This is an international programme that conducts annual individual-level surveys on social science topics. The surveys have been conducted since 1984. Research organizations, universities, and public opinion agencies have been involved. All data and related documentation are freely available for professional use. Social inequality, citizenship, religion, health, or the role of government are just a few examples of the areas on which opinion polls focus. The 2016 data module on the role of government is utilized (ISSP Research Group 2018). This module provides specific insights into public opinion on the government's right to implement surveillance, as well as a range of political and socioeconomic data about respondents. It is important to note that this dataset was collected in 2016, predating the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. However, the implications of the GDPR have been taken into account during the interpretation of the results.

Models

Five regression models were constructed. The individual dependent variables represent the respondents' opinion on the government's right to tap the telephone, video surveillance, Internet monitoring, collect information about anyone in the country and collect information about anyone abroad without their knowledge. The dependent variables were recoded to be dichotomous (taking only two values), with 1 meaning government should have right and 2 meaning government should not have right. As a result, logistic regression analysis was used. All selected European countries offered by the ISSP in the 2016 module The Role of Government are included in the models. The effect of each country was therefore controlled by including dummy variables and using a fixed effects model. Hierarchical models were not used, both because individual-level data were worked with and because hierarchical models can be methodologically problematic. This is particularly the case when there are not enough cases for effective analysis at a higher level. Some authors therefore recommend a 30/30 rule, i.e., 30 cases per level (Kreft 1996; Hox 2010; Maas and Hox 2005; Snijders and Bosker 1996). However, this research covers only 19 countries. The models test whether and to what extent different political variables influence the view of the government's right to implement different forms of surveillance. The political variables chosen are perceptions of corruption, government spending on policing and law enforcement, and respondent's political issue understanding. Several socioeconomic variables are also included in the models. See “Appendix” for a more detailed specification of all variables (Table 3). In the “Appendix,” we have provided descriptive statistics on the respondents and data representativeness to enhance transparency and comprehension of our dataset (Table 4). It is worth noting that while the dataset comprises 20,153 cases, the regression models used fewer due to missing values in the dependent variable for certain cases.

Results

Table 1 provides insights into public attitudes across European countries regarding various government surveillance rights. Each entry represents a combination of the responses ‘definitely should have right' and 'probably should have right.’ When analyzing the data based on average scores, distinct patterns become evident. Phone tapping, with an average approval rating of 69.5%, and video surveillance at 68.4%, emerge as the most accepted forms of surveillance across the surveyed countries. This contrasts starkly with the acceptance of Internet monitoring, which sits at a considerably lower average of 33.5%. However, even within these broad averages, considerable variance is seen between countries.

Table 1 Public attitudes towards government rights
Full size table

Delving deeper into country-specific data, our analysis reveals a nuanced landscape of public support for surveillance rights across Europe. Specifically, countries like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia exhibit a consistent below-average endorsement across all surveillance rights, positioning them as 5/5 in terms of skepticism towards these measures. In contrast, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania present a slightly varied stance, with below-average support in four out of five rights, categorizing them as 4/5. This distinction underscores the complexity of public sentiment towards surveillance, suggesting that while there is a general trend of skepticism, the degree and nuances of this skepticism vary significantly across countries. Also, in the case of Iceland, Russia, and Switzerland, it is found that these countries register support levels below the overall average in exactly three out of the five surveillance categories evaluated. This 3/5 pattern underlines a nuanced approach to government surveillance, indicating a selective acceptance or skepticism towards these measures. This nuanced stance reflects the countries' complex balancing of privacy concerns with security needs, suggesting a thoughtful consideration of the extent and implications of surveillance practices. It is important to interpret these scores with caution, as this comparative data may reflect deeper socio-cultural or political nuances unique to each country.

On the flip side, countries including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, and Great Britain stand out for their pronounced endorsement of surveillance rights, consistently scoring above the average across all categories. This broad acceptance is particularly noteworthy in the current global context, signifying a potential trust in governmental measures or perhaps cultural factors at play. When we consider overall support for surveillance rights, Belgium, Great Britain, and Sweden distinguish themselves as top scorers, highlighting a general public inclination towards approval of such measures. Conversely, Slovakia, Slovenia, Germany, Latvia, and Iceland are characterized by their relatively low scores, suggesting more restrained public sentiment regarding government surveillance rights in these countries.

While these findings provide valuable insights, it is crucial to contextualize them within each country's unique socio-political landscape. Moreover, public acceptance of a right does not necessarily equate to approval of its implementation or lack of concerns about potential abuses. This study aims at a comparative analysis, spotlighting both the similarities and differences as well as the scoring margins, without delving into the specific socio-political dynamics of each country.

Table 2 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis. For each dependent variable, we employed a distinct regression model that consolidated data from all 19 countries. To address country-specific nuances and variations, we incorporated country dummies into our models. This methodological decision enables us to gauge the comprehensive influence of policy variables on governmental rights associated with citizen surveillance. Simultaneously, it ensures that we adequately control for any divergences that are unique to individual countries. How selected policy variables affect individual government rights related to surveillance or monitoring of citizens was tested. Several standard socioeconomic variables were also included in the regression models. However, before the regression analysis was performed, the degree of correlation between the variables was examined. The highest correlation was between the Work status variable and the Age variable, at 0.327 according to the Pearson correlation coefficient. All other variables had less than this correlation value. Therefore, it was possible to include all the selected variables in the regression analysis.

Table 2 Effects of political and socioeconomic variables on opinion regarding government rights
Full size table

The regression models show that the selected political variables are statistically significant in almost all cases and thus affect the selected dependent variables in the form of opinion on government rights. Statistical significance is only absent for the effect of corruption on the government's right to collect information about anyone abroad and for the effect of political issues understanding on the government's right to monitor the Internet. However, even so, these variables have the same direction of the predictor.

The first political variable operates in the direction of the more politicians involved in corruption, the greater the respondents' disapproval of the government being able to tap phones, conduct surveillance, monitor, or generally collect information about people. This may imply some fear on the part of the respondents about the misuse of public power for private purposes, namely that politicians will misuse the information obtained from wiretapping and monitoring citizens for their private benefit, for example, in the context of political struggle.

The second policy variable related to views on government spending works in the direction of the more respondents believe that the government should invest in police forces and law enforcement, the more they also think that the government should have the right to phone tapping, surveillance, monitoring, or information gathering. Government surveillance in general is one of the tools used by security forces such as the police and intelligence services, so it is evident that at the individual respondent level there is a link between the view of government spending in this area and the view of the government's right to implement it.

The third political variable related to political issues understanding of the respondent also works in the same direction. The more the respondent believes that he or she understands the political issues facing the country, the more he or she believes that the government should have the right to tap telephone, surveillance, and other information gathering rights. In a broader sense, it can be concluded that politically aware respondents are more aware of potential security threats compared to less politically aware respondents, and thus are generally in favor of government surveillance rights that have the potential to enhance security.

In terms of socioeconomic variables, the likelihood of having a positive opinion of all rights included in the models increases as the age of the respondent increases. For the variable representing gender, it is important to distinguish between the rights. While men are much more likely to think that the government should have the right to video surveillance and Internet monitoring, the opposite is true for the government's rights to gather information either at home or abroad. That the government should have the right to Internet monitoring or to collect information on anyone abroad is especially the view of less educated respondents. However, the variable representing education is not statistically significant in relation to the other three rights of the government. Place of living was not statistically significant in either case. In contrast, the Work status variable was statistically significant in four regression models except for the video surveillance model, showing that it is people in paid work who are much more likely to think that the government should have these selected security rights compared to respondents who are not economically active.

Discussion

The results reveal several compelling insights into public attitudes towards government surveillance across European countries. Most pronouncedly, the acceptance of surveillance rights diverges between Western and Nordic countries compared to their post-Communist counterparts. Countries like Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, and Great Britain consistently demonstrate above-average endorsement of the various surveillance rights. In contrast, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania routinely register below-average support.

As the regression analysis confirms, countries with a Communist legacy tend to be more suspicious of government surveillance programs. This suggests that lived experiences under authoritarian regimes can breed enduring wariness towards state powers of surveillance. However, it is imperative to approach this finding with nuance. The relationship between historical–political legacies and public attitudes towards surveillance is complex and multifaceted. Other factors, such as recent political transformations, evolving societal values, and global trends in governance and privacy rights, also play a significant role. Hence, while the Communist–capitalist dichotomy offers a useful lens, it is but one of many factors that shape public perceptions of surveillance. Our findings validate the view that this sense of skepticism remains perceptible in post-Communist countries decades after the dissolution of the Eastern bloc. Conversely, the elevated acceptance of surveillance rights in Western and Nordic countries may reflect greater public trust in governmental institutions and security initiatives. However, high scores on abstract rights do not necessarily mean citizens enthusiastically welcome real-world surveillance measures. The complex interplay between security priorities, privacy concerns, and public trust underpins these variations between regions. As the literature explores, factors like perceived transparency, regulatory oversight, and potential for abuse all shape attitudes on state surveillance (Nam 2019).

Drilling down into the five categories, phone tapping and video surveillance draw the most consensus across countries as acceptable rights. Though still contentious, these conventional forms of surveillance tend to align with public notions of warranted state powers for law enforcement and national security purposes. However, Internet monitoring emerges as the least approved category overall. In the digital age, technological advancements may be outpacing civic readiness to confer unbridled surveillance powers upon governments. Finally, domestic and foreign information gathering hover uneasily in the middle, neither garnering sweeping endorsement nor outright censure across diverse countries. These results illuminate the nuanced fault lines in public attitudes, underscoring the need for an evidence-based approach as governments negotiate the boundaries between security imperatives and civil liberties. While no uniform consensus exists across the European landscape, our findings contribute valuable insights on where citizens may draw the line between warranted and unwarranted state surveillance.

Conclusion

This study sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of public attitudes towards both warranted and unwarranted government surveillance in European countries and to discern the variables shaping these perspectives. Utilizing data from the International Social Survey Programme, there was a clear divergence in the endorsement of government surveillance between Western and Nordic countries as opposed to their post-Communist counterparts.

Our research indicated that respondents with a heightened grasp of political matters and those in favor of government spending on security usually held a more favorable view of government surveillance rights. On the contrary, a pronounced perception of corruption adversely influenced their perspective on these rights. Within the vast spectrum of surveillance types, there was a significant public endorsement for government rights to tap phones and undertake video surveillance. However, the rights pertaining to Internet monitoring and information collection domestically and internationally witnessed comparatively diminished support. This variation in public sentiment underscores the intricate equilibrium between the imperatives of security and the preservation of privacy rights.

Therefore, the response to the main question of the study is that the line between warranted and unwarranted government surveillance is largely influenced by the type of surveillance, regional differences, and political variables. Traditional forms of surveillance, such as phone tapping and video surveillance, were generally accepted as warranted, whereas Internet monitoring was less favored, potentially seen as an unwarranted breach of digital privacy. There were notable regional disparities, with Western and Nordic countries showing higher acceptance compared to post-Communist countries, reflecting their distinct historical experiences and political cultures. Political factors, including the level of perceived corruption and grasp of political matters, notably shape public sentiment, indicating that confidence in governmental institutions plays a crucial role in the reception of surveillance measures. To summarize, the line drawn by the public between warranted and unwarranted government surveillance represents a complex, shifting boundary contingent on an array of societal, technological, and political dynamics.

When viewed through the prism of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), these findings acquire an amplified significance. The GDPR, by reshaping the parameters of data protection and privacy in Europe, also indirectly casts its shadow on the public's perception of government surveillance, warranting further scholarly examination.

Delving deeper into the granular details, it was discerned that the public's acceptance of specific surveillance rights is not just shaped by political variables but also influenced by certain sociodemographic aspects. The prevailing sentiments in the Western and Nordic regions contrasted starkly with those in Eastern European countries, especially concerning the rights related to Internet monitoring and information collection. A practical takeaway from these observations suggests that to gain broader public consensus on surveillance measures, governments, especially in post-Communist countries, should fortify public understanding of political affairs and security threats. Simultaneously, addressing and minimizing corruption is paramount to instill public trust in the judicious use of surveillance data.

Given the evolving geopolitical landscape, exemplified by instances like the Russian Federation's expansion into Ukrainian territories, these insights become especially pertinent for the national security strategies of Eastern European countries. This study, therefore, not only augments the existing literature on government surveillance but also offers directional insights for policy-makers. It underscores the need for future research to keep pace with the dynamically changing interplay of legislation, technology, and public sentiment, as the world grapples with reconciling security imperatives and privacy concerns in an increasingly digital epoch.