Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 187–207 | Cite as

The Relative Moral Risks of Untargeted and Targeted Surveillance

Article

Abstract

Is surveillance that is targeted towards specific individuals easier to justify than surveillance that targets broad categories of people? Untargeted surveillance is routinely accused of treating innocent people as suspects in ways that are unfair and of failing to pursue security effectively. I argue that in a wide range of cases untargeted surveillance treats people less like suspects than more targeted alternatives. I also argue that it often deters unwanted behaviour more effectively than targeted alternatives, including profiling. In practice, untargeted surveillance is likely to be least costly morally and most efficient when used as a means of enforcing the rules of a specific activity or institution. Targeted alternatives are likely to be more appropriate means of law enforcement.

Keywords

Surveillance Privacy Stigmatisation Discrimination Reciprocity 

References

  1. Allen A (2011) Unpopular privacy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson R (2007) Shame, stigma and disgust in the decent society. J Ethics 11(1)Google Scholar
  3. BBC (2010) Concern over 2012 athletes’ village drug tests http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/8440088.stm
  4. Bou-Habib P (2008) Profiling, security and equality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (2)Google Scholar
  5. Bou-Habib P (2011) Racial profiling and background injustice. J Ethics 15(1–2)Google Scholar
  6. Bowling B, Phillips C (2007) Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. Mod Law Rev 70(6)Google Scholar
  7. Briggs R, Fieschi C, Lownsbrough H (2006) Bringing it home: Community-based approaches to counter-terrorism. A DEMOS Report. Downloadable at http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/bringingithome. Last Accessed 12.03.13
  8. Chakrabarti S (2004) Director of Liberty. The End of Innocence. Centre for Public Law Lecture, Cambridge University. Full text available at http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/articles/pdfs/end-of-innocence-november-2004.pdf. Last Accessed 30 July 2013
  9. Clancy T (1994) The role of individualized suspicion in assessing the reasonableness of searches and seizures. University of Memphis Law Review 25Google Scholar
  10. Courtwright (2011) Stigmatisation and public health ethics. Bioethics 27(2)Google Scholar
  11. Department of Information systems, LSE (2005) The identity project: An assessment of the UK identity cards bill and its implications. Department of Information Systems, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/684/ Google Scholar
  12. El-Alwa S, Macdonald L (2008) Police-Muslim engagement and partnerships for the purpose of counter-terrorism: An examination. University of Birmingham & AHRC http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News/Latest/Documents/Rad%20Islam%20Summary%20Report.pdf. Last Accessed 28 March 2012
  13. Fundamental Rights Agency of the EU (FRA) (2010) Towards more effective policing. Understanding and preventing discriminatory ethnic profiling: A guide http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Guide_ethnic_profiling.pdf
  14. Gillian vs Quinton, European court of human rights, Judgement, Strasbourg 12 January 2010Google Scholar
  15. Guardian Newspaper (2012) Protester sues police over surveillance database http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/09/protester-sues-police-surveillance-database
  16. Hadjimatheou K (2011) Moral risks of profiling in counter-terrorism. DETECTER Project Deliverable 15(4). At www.detecter.eu. Last accessed 12.3.2013
  17. Haggerty K, Ericson RV (1997) Policing the risk society. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  18. Harcourt B (2004) Rethinking racial profiling: A critique of the economics, civil liberties, and constitutional literature, and of criminal profiling more generally. University of Chicago Law Review 71(4)Google Scholar
  19. Hooker B (2001) Ideal code, real world: A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. House of Lords (2009) Constitution committee. Surveillance and the State: Second Report, 2008–9. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/1802.htm. Last accessed 1st July 2012.
  21. Human Rights Watch (2010) Without suspicion: Stop and search under the terrorism act 2000Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy R (1997) Race, law and suspicion. In: Race, crime and the law, Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Lerner CS (2006) Reasonable suspicion and mere hunches. Vanderbildt Law Review 59(2)Google Scholar
  24. Lever A (2004) Why racial profiling is unjustified. Philos Publ Aff 32(2)Google Scholar
  25. Lever A (2008) Mrs Aremac and the camera: A response to Ryberg. Res Publica 14(1)Google Scholar
  26. Lever A (2011) Privacy: A short introduction, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Liberty (2010) From war to law: Liberty’s response to the coalition government’s review of counter-terrorism legislationGoogle Scholar
  28. Lippert-Rasmussen (2006) Racial profiling versus community. J Appl Philos 23(2)Google Scholar
  29. Lyon D (1994) The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Marx G (2007) Hey buddy, can you spare a DNA? New surveillance technologies and the growth of mandatory volunteerism in collecting information. Ann Ist Super Sanita 43(1)Google Scholar
  31. Moeckli D (2007) Stop and search under the terrorism act 2000: A comment on R (Gillan) v UK. Mod Law Rev 70(4)Google Scholar
  32. Monahan T (2010) Surveillance as governance: Social Inequality and the Pursuit of Democratic Surveillance. In: Haggerty K and Samatas M (eds) Surveillance and democracy, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Nance DA (1994) Civility and the Burden of Proof. Harv J Law Publ Pol 17Google Scholar
  34. New Scientist (2006) All Seeing Eyes http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/11/all-seeing-eyes.html. Last Accessed 1st July 2012.
  35. O’Connor M, Rumann C (2003) Into the fire: How to avoid getting burned by the same mistakes made fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland. Cardozo L Rev 24:1657Google Scholar
  36. Parmar A (2011) Stop and search in London: Counter-terrorist or counter-productive? Policing and Society 21(4)Google Scholar
  37. Primus (2011) Disentangling administrative searches. In: Columbia Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawls (1981) The Basic Liberties and their Priority. The Tanner Lectures, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  39. Reiman (2011) Is racial profiling just? Making criminal justice policy in the original position. J Ethics 15(1–2)Google Scholar
  40. Report of the UK Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism 2010 Lord Carlile March 2010.Google Scholar
  41. Risse M, Zeckhauser R (2004) Racial profiling. Philos Publ Aff 322(2)Google Scholar
  42. Roberts Paul (1995) Taking the burden of proof seriously. Crim Law RevGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryberg (2007) Privacy rights, crime prevention, CCTV, and the life of Mrs Aremac. Res PublicaGoogle Scholar
  44. Schauer (1997) Generality and equality. Law Philos 16Google Scholar
  45. Sir John Stevens (2006) If you’re Muslim, it’s your Problem. News of the WorldGoogle Scholar
  46. Solove (2008) Understanding privacy, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Sorell (2011) Preventive policing, surveillance, and European counter-terrorism. Crim Justice EthicsGoogle Scholar
  48. Tadros V, Tierny S (2004) The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Mod Law Rev 67(3)Google Scholar
  49. UK House of Lords 12, 2006: Judgments—R (on the application of Gillan (FC) and another (FC)) (Appellants) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another (Respondents)Google Scholar
  50. UK Identity Cards Act 2006. Chapter 15. Full text available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/15/. Last Accessed 30 July 2013
  51. Van der Hilst R (2011) Characteristics and uses of selected detection technologies: Tracking technologies. DETECTER Project Deliverable 17(3) www.detecter.eu. Last accessed 12.3.2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Security Ethics GroupPolitics and International Studies, University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations