Abstract
This article investigates public attitudes towards government surveillance for law enforcement and national security in different European countries, considering the broader context of citizens' security concerns. These concerns encompass crime within individual countries, potential terrorist attacks, activities of foreign agents, and even inter-state conflicts, such as the Russian Federation's military aggression against Ukraine. Using data from the International Social Survey Programme, we examine opinions about various types of government surveillance. Regression analysis is employed to determine which variables influence these opinions. Notably, there is a tangible hesitation among citizens regarding such surveillance, stemming from fears of privacy invasion and potential misuse of collected data. Our findings indicate greater support for government surveillance in Western and Nordic countries compared to post-Communist countries. Respondents with a comprehensive understanding of political issues and those advocating for government spending on security generally held a more positive view of government surveillance rights. On the other hand, perceptions of higher corruption were linked to negative views on surveillance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
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.
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.
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.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in ISSP at International Social Survey Programme at http://w.issp.org/menu-top/home/.
Notes
Surveillance can certainly be an effective government tool for increasing the security of citizens, but it can also be counterproductive for the government itself. Surveys from North Korea have shown that government surveillance concerns of citizens tend to increase cyber-rumor sharing on the Internet, especially in times of homeland security threat (Hazel Kwon and Raghav Rao 2017).
For example, an analysis of Twitter data that revealed that disclosures on Australia's secret surveillance of Indonesian political elites had negative political implications for bilateral relations (Chatfield et al. 2015).
Mention may be made of a study which found that federal funding for 18 local in Australia to install CCTV systems causes populism and political pressure rather than objective reasons (Carr 2016) or a UK local authority case study that reveals how the performance management systems are transformed into a surveillance system (Kayas et al. 2019).
References
Bernard, Rose, Gemma Bowsher, and Richard Sullivan. 2020. COVID-19 and the Rise of Participatory SIGINT: An Examination of the Rise in Government Surveillance Through Mobile Applications. American Journal of Public Health 110 (12): 1780–1785. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305912.
Bernstein, Merrick D. 1996. ‘Intimate Details’: A Troubling New Fourth Amendment Standard for Government Surveillance Techniques. Duke Law Journal 46 (3): 575–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372942.
Best, Samuel J., and Brian S. Krueger. 2008. Political Conflict and Public Perceptions of Government Surveillance on the Internet: An Experiment of Online Search Terms. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 5 (2): 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802294479.
Carr, Robert. 2016. Surveillance Politics and Local Government: A National Survey of Federal Funding for CCTV in Australia. Security Journal 29 (4): 683–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.12.
Cavazos, David E., Matthew Rutherford, and Shawn L. Berman. 2018. Assessing the Effect of Government Surveillance on Firm Supererogation: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry. Business Ethics: A European Review 27 (2): 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12179.
Chatfield, Akemi Takeoka, Christopher G. Reddick, and Uuf Brajawidagda. 2015. Government Surveillance Disclosures, Bilateral Trust and Indonesia-Australia Cross-Border Security Cooperation: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data. Government Information Quarterly 32 (2): 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.002.
Connor, Brian T., and Long Doan. 2021. Government and Corporate Surveillance: Moral Discourse on Privacy in the Civil Sphere. Information, Communication and Society 24 (1): 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1629693.
Cropf, R.A., and T.C. Bagwell. 2016. Ethical Issues and Citizen Rights in the Era of Digital Government Surveillance. In Ethical Issues and Citizen Rights in the Era of Digital Government Surveillance. Advances in Public Policy and Administration, ed. Robert A. Cropf and Timothy C. Bagwell. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9905-2.
Dinev, Tamara. 2008. Internet Users’ Beliefs About Government Surveillance the Role of Social Awareness and Internet Literacy. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), 2008, 275–275. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.216.
Dinev, Tamara, Massimo Bellotto, Paul Hart, Vincenzo Russo, and Ilaria Serra. 2006. Internet Users’ Privacy Concerns and Beliefs About Government Surveillance. Journal of Global Information Management 14 (4): 57–93. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2006100103.
Dinev, Tamara, Paul Hart, and Michael R. Mullen. 2008. Internet Privacy Concerns and Beliefs About Government Surveillance—An Empirical Investigation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (3): 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.09.002.
Dumsday, Travis. 2008. Group Privacy and Government Surveillance of Religious Services. The Monist 91 (1): 170–186. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200891118.
Gstrein, Oskar Josef. 2020. Mapping Power and Jurisdiction on the Internet Through the Lens of Government-Led Surveillance. Internet Policy Review 9 (3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.3.1497.
Hazel Kwon, K., and H. Raghav Rao. 2017. Cyber-Rumor Sharing Under a Homeland Security Threat in the Context of Government Internet Surveillance: The Case of South-North Korea Conflict. Government Information Quarterly 34 (2): 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.04.002.
Henderson, Nathan C. 2002. The Patriot Act’s Impact on the Government’s Ability to Conduct Electronic Surveillance of Ongoing Domestic Communications. Duke Law Journal 52 (1): 179–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/1373134.
Hox, Joop J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
ISSP Research Group. 2018. International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government V—ISSP 2016. ZA6900 Data File Version 2.0.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13052.
Johnson, Courtney N. 2017. A ‘Massive and Unprecedented Intrusion.’ Digital Journalism 5 (3): 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1251330.
Kayas, Oliver G., Tony Hines, Rachel McLean, and Gillian H. Wright. 2019. Resisting Government Rendered Surveillance in a Local Authority. Public Management Review 21 (8): 1170–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1544661.
Kim, T., and D.J. Atkin. 2019. How Government Surveillance Policies Modify SNS Use in South Korea. Journal of Information Policy 9: 214–237. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0214.
Kininmonth, Joel, Nik Thompson, Tanya McGill, and Anna Bunn. 2018. Privacy Concerns and Acceptance of Government Surveillance in Australia. In Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2018, 2018. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney ePress. https://doi.org/10.5130/acis2018.cn.
Kreft, Ita G.G. 1996. Are Multilevel Techniques Necessary? An Overview, Including Simulation Studies. Unpublished Manuscript. Los Angeles: California State University.
Krueger, Brian S. 2005. Government Surveillance and Political Participation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review 23 (4): 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305278871.
Krueger, Brian S. 2008. Resisting Government Internet Surveillance by Participating in Politics Online and Offline. In Patriotic Information Systems, ed. Todd Loendorf and G. David Garson, 129–152. Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-594-8.ch006.
Lim, Sun Sun, Hichang Cho, and Milagros Rivera Sanchez. 2009. Online Privacy, Government Surveillance and National ID Cards. Communications of the ACM 52 (12): 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1610252.1610283.
Lips, Miriam, John A. Taylor, and Joe Organ. 2009. Managing Citizen Identity Information in E-Government Service Relationships in the UK. Public Management Review 11 (6): 833–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030903318988.
Maas, Cora J. M., and Joop J. Hox. 2005. Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Methodology 1 (3): 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.85.
Macnish, Kevin. 2018. Government Surveillance and Why Defining Privacy Matters in a Post-Snowden World. Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (2): 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12219.
McKee, Heidi A. 2011. Policy Matters Now and in the Future: Net Neutrality, Corporate Data Mining, and Government Surveillance. Computers and Composition 28 (4): 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.09.001.
Miller, Helen E., Samantha L. Thomas, Kylie M. Smith, and Priscilla Robinson. 2016. Surveillance, Responsibility and Control: An Analysis of Government and Industry Discourses About ‘Problem’ and ‘Responsible’ Gambling. Addiction Research and Theory 24 (2): 163–176. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2015.1094060.
Montalbano, Kathryn. 2018. Government Surveillance of Religious Expression. Government Surveillance of Religious Expression: Mormons, Quakers, and Muslims in the United States. Routledge Studies in Religion. New York : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315141961.
Muir, Lorna. 2015. Transparent Fictions: Big Data, Information and the Changing Mise-En-Scène of (Government and) Surveillance. Surveillance and Society 13 (3/4): 354–369. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i3/4.5378.
Nam, Taewoo. 2019. What Determines the Acceptance of Government Surveillance? Examining the Influence of Information Privacy Correlates. The Social Science Journal 56 (4): 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.10.001.
O’Connor, Alexander J., and Farhana Jahan. 2014. Under Surveillance and Overwrought: American Muslims’ Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Government Surveillance. Journal of Muslim Mental Health 8 (1): 95–106. https://doi.org/10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0008.106.
Rajamaki, Jyri, Juha Knuuttila, Harri Ruoslahti, Jouni Viitanen, and Pasi Patama. 2015. Transparent Surveillance of Suspects for Building Trust Between Citizens and Their Governments. In 2015 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, 2015, 181–181. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EISIC.2015.31.
Rider, Karina. 2018. The Privacy Paradox: How Market Privacy Facilitates Government Surveillance. Information, Communication and Society 21 (10): 1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1314531.
Robis, Leah Angela. 2014. When Does Public Interest Justify Government Interference and Surveillance? Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 15 (1–2): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-15010209.
Ryan, Mary K. 2018. Government Surveillance: Racism and Civic Virtue in the United States. In Surveillance, Race, Culture, ed. Susan Flynn and Antonia Mackay, 43–59. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77938-6_3.
Slobogin, Christopher. 2017. Legislative Regulation of Government Surveillance. In The Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law, ed. David Gray and Stephen E. Henderson, 597–622. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316481127.026.
Snijders, Tom A B., and Roel J. Bosker. 1996. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE.
Thompson, Nik, Tanya McGill, Anna Bunn, and Rukshan Alexander. 2020. Cultural Factors and the Role of Privacy Concerns in Acceptance of Government Surveillance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71 (9): 1129–1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24372.
Tryfonas, Theo, Michael Carter, Tom Crick, and Panagiotis Andriotis. 2016. Mass Surveillance in Cyberspace and the Lost Art of Keeping a Secret. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 9750), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39381-0_16.
Walden, Gwen I. 2006. Who’s Watching Us Now? The Nonprofit Sector and the New Government by Surveillance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (4): 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289767.
Xu, Heng, and Tamara Dinev. 2012. The Security-Liberty Balance: Individuals’ Attitudes Towards Internet Government Surveillance. Electronic Government, an International Journal 9 (1): 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2012.044778.
Funding
Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Školník, M., Haman, M. Drawing the line: public attitudes towards warranted and unwarranted government surveillance in European countries. Secur J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00426-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00426-4