Skip to main content

An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance

Abstract

It is often claimed that surveillance should be proportionate, but it is rarely made clear exactly what proportionate surveillance would look like beyond an intuitive sense of an act being excessive. I argue that surveillance should indeed be proportionate and draw on Thomas Hurka’s work on proportionality in war to inform the debate on surveillance. After distinguishing between the proportionality of surveillance per se, and surveillance as a particular act, I deal with objections to using proportionality as a legitimate ethical measure. From there I argue that only certain benefits and harms should be counted in any determination of proportionality. Finally I look at how context can affect the proportionality of a particular method of surveillance. In conclusion, I hold that proportionality is not only a morally relevant criterion by which to assess surveillance, but that it is a necessary criterion. Furthermore, while granting that it is difficult to assess, that difficulty should not prevent our trying to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. I have argued elsewhere for the applicability of the just war tradition to the ethics of surveillance (Macnish 2014). This paper involves a development of one aspect of that argument. In addition, I am grateful to comments by Thomas Hurka and an anonymous reviewer for improvements made to this paper.

  2. Imagine a farmer extending his field across an international border. As a result the state into which he has encroached declares war on his state. All other things being equal, this declaration would be a disproportionate response.

  3. I am grateful to Thomas Hurka for clarifying this distinction.

  4. I am grateful to Thomas Hurka for pointing this out.

References

  • Allen AL (2008) The virtuous spy: privacy as an ethical limit. Monist 91:3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alleyne, By Richard. 2008. Poole council spies on family over school claim. Telegraph.co.uk, April 11

  • Barrett, David. 2012. Phone and email records to be stored in new spy plan. Telegraph.co.uk, February 18

  • Cavanaugh TA (2006) Double-effect reasoning: doing good and avoiding evil. Oxford studies in theological ethics. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coates AJ (1997) The ethics of war. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle T (2009) Privacy and perfect voyeurism. Ethics Inf Technol 11:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frowe H (2011) The ethics of war and peace: an introduction. Routledge, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, Ryan, and Rajeev Syal. 2011. Met police using surveillance system to monitor mobile phones. the Guardian. October 30

  • Graham G (1996) Ethics and international relation. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1996) What is philosophy of risk? Theoria 62:169–186. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.1996.tb00536.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. 2010. Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Revised Code of Practice. The Stationery Office

  • Hurka T (2005) Proportionality in the morality of war. Philos Public Aff 33:34–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JT (1999) Morality and Contemporary Warfare. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinig J (2009) The ethical perils of knowledge acquisition. Crim Justice Ethics 28:201–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopstein, Joshua. 2013. Metadata matters: how phone records and obsolete laws harm privacy and the free press. The Verge. May 16

  • Lackey DP (1988) The ethics of war and peace. Prentice-Hall, Facsimile

    Google Scholar 

  • Lever A (2008) Mrs. Aremac and the camera: a response to ryberg. Res Publica 14:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon D (2001) Facing the future: seeking ethics for everyday surveillance. Ethics Inf Technol 3:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnish K (2014) Just surveillance? Towards a normative theory of surveillance. Surveill Soc 12:142–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx GT (1998) Ethics for the new surveillance. Inf Soc 14:171–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan J (2009) Intention, permissibility, terrorism, and war. Philos Perspect 23:345–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan O (2003) The just war revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orend B (2000) Michael Walzer on war and justice. University of Wales Press, Wales

    Google Scholar 

  • Orwell G (2004) 1984 nineteen eighty-four, Newth edn. Penguin Classics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles, Nick. 2011. Nine in Ten TFL CCTV cameras fail to solve a single crime | Big Brother Watch. December 21

  • RIPA. 2000. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

  • Ross, David. 2002. The Right and the Good. Edited by Philip Stratton-Lake. New edition. Clarendon Press

  • Ryberg J (2007) Privacy rights, crime prevention, CCTV, and the life of Mrs Aremac. Res Publica 13:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddart E (2014) Challenging “just surveillance theory”: a response to Kevin Macnish’s “just surveillance? towards a normative theory of surveillance.”. Surveill Soc 12:158–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, Michael. 2006. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Revised edition. Basic Books

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Macnish.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macnish, K. An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 18, 529–548 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9537-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9537-5

Keywords

  • Surveillance
  • Proportionality
  • Thomas Hurka
  • Just war
  • Datong
  • Oliver O’Donovan