Advertisement

Surveillance and the ‘Monitoring’ of Citizens by the State

  • Imran Awan
  • Keith Spiller
  • Andrew Whiting
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

This chapter discusses monitoring and the surveillance techniques and theoretical approaches that have been used to examine the process. Our focus is the actualisation of the Prevent Strategy, in itself a form of monitoring and surveillance, where those in authority record the activities of students and make decisions on their interpretations of the ‘risk’ credential of their students. Furthermore, the widespread application of monitoring and surveillance techniques has been posited to cause a number of socially dangerous consequences which stem from its ability to discriminate between different population groups within its multifarious domains of application (see Gandy, Ethics Inf Technol 12(1): 29–42, 2010). Surveillance, per se, can be understood as an organising principle which relies on the observation of a domain, and the data resulting from that observation is then used to enable regulation, governance, or management (Lyon, Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Open University Press, Buckingham, 2001: 2). The Prevent Strategy gives rise, reason, and authority to, how, as we argue, institutions such as universities monitor their charges and perform roles of surveillance by monitoring students for evidence of radicalisation or terrorist intent. We do, however, remain attentive to the necessary workings of monitoring; for instance, private sector and governing authorities at all levels of scale rely on surveillant techniques to control the risks associated with their activities. The chapter offers an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of monitoring and the agendas that inform the Prevent Strategy applied in an educational context; as the chapter progresses, we discuss concepts of bureaucracy and technology, risk control, and responsibilisation in furthering our thoughts.

Keywords

Surveillance Monitoring Consequences Theoretical approach Universities 

References

  1. Adey, P. 2012. “Borders, identification and surveillance: New regimes of border control”. In Ball, K, K Haggerty and D Lyon (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. London: Routledge: 193–200.Google Scholar
  2. Andrejevic, M. 2009. iSpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Kanas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aradau, C., & Van Munster, R. 2007. “Governing terrorism through risk: Taking precautions, (un) knowing the future”, European journal of international relations, 13(1): 89–115.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, J. and Steeves, V. 2013. “Will the real digital girl please stand up?: Examining the gap between policy dialogue and girls’ accounts of their digital existence”. In Macgregor Wise, J. and Koskela, H. (eds.) New Visualities, New Technologies: the New Ecstasy of Communication. Burlington: Ashgate: 41–65.Google Scholar
  5. Ball K. 2002. “Elements of surveillance: a new framework and future directions”, Information, Communication and Society, 5(4): 573–590.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, K., Canhoto, A., Daniel, E., Dibb, S., Meadows, M. & Spiller, K. 2015. The Private Security State?: Surveillance, consumer Data and the War on Terror. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. 2013. Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. BBC. 2018. “How universities replied to that Brexit letter”. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42431780
  9. Bennett J, 2001. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings and Ethics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, C. J. 2005. “What happens when you book an airline ticket? The collection and processing of passenger data post-9/11”. In Zureik, E. and Salter, M. (eds.) Global surveillance and policing. Devon: Willian Publishing: 113–38.Google Scholar
  11. Bigo, D. 2001. “The Mobius ribbon of internal and external securities”. In Albert, M., Jacobson, D. and Lapid, Y. (eds.) Identities, Borders, Orders. Minneapolis, M.N.: University of Minnesota Press: 91–116.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bowker, G. and Star, S. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Canhoto, A. and Backhouse, J. 2007. “Profiling under conditions of ambiguity: An application in the financial services industry”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14: 408–419.Google Scholar
  16. Cantle, T. and Thomas, P. 2014. Taking the Think Project Forward: The Need for Preventative Anti-Extremism Educational Work. Swansea: Ethnic Youth Support Team.Google Scholar
  17. Cobain I. 2010. “London bombings: the day the anti-terrorism rules changed”, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/07/london-bombings-anti-terrorism
  18. Chouinard, V. 1997. “Structure and Agency: contested concepts in human geography”, The Canadian Geographer, 41(4): 363–377.Google Scholar
  19. Dear, L. 2018. “The University as Border Control”, International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(1): 7–23.Google Scholar
  20. De Hert, P. 2005. “Balancing security and liberty within the European human rights framework. A critical reading of the Court’s case law in the light of surveillance and criminal law enforcement strategies after 9/11”, Utrecht L. Rev., 1: 68–98.Google Scholar
  21. Deleuze, G. 1992. “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, October 59: 3–7.Google Scholar
  22. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 1994. What is philosophy? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  23. Denham, J. 2001. Building Cohesive Communities: A Report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Dodge, M. and Kitchen, R. 2005. “Codes of Life: identification codes and the machine-readable world”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23: 851–881.Google Scholar
  25. Dowding, K. 2008. “Agency and structure: Interpreting power relationships”, Journal of Power, 1(1): 21–36.Google Scholar
  26. Elton-Chalcraft, S., Lander, V., Revell, L., Warner, D., & Whitworth, L. 2017. “To promote, or not to promote fundamental British values? Teachers’ standards, diversity and teacher education”, British Educational Research Journal, 43(1): 29–48.Google Scholar
  27. Gad, C. and Lauritsen, P. 2009. “Situated Surveillance: an ethnographic study of fisheries inspection in Denmark”, Surveillance & Society, 7(1): 49–57.Google Scholar
  28. Gandy, O. 2010. “Engaging Rational Discrimination: Exploring Reasons for Placing Regulatory Constraints on Decision Support Systems”, Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1): 29–42.Google Scholar
  29. Garland, D. 1996. “The Limits of the Sovereign State: strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society”, The British Journal of Criminology, 36(4): 445–471.Google Scholar
  30. Garner, S. 2012. “A moral economy of whiteness: Behaviours, belonging and Britishness”, Ethnicities, 12(4): 445–464.Google Scholar
  31. Giddens, A. 1998. The Third Way. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  32. Gilliom, J. 2001. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Goold, B., Loader, I. and Thumala, A. 2010. “Consuming security? Tools for a sociology of security Consumption”, Theoretical Criminology, 14(3): 3–30.Google Scholar
  34. Grace, J. 2018. “Countering extremism and recording dissent: Intelligence analysis and the Prevent agenda in UK Higher Education”, Journal of Information Rights, Policy and Practice, 2(2): 1–10.Google Scholar
  35. Graham S. D. N., 2005. “Software-sorted geographies”, Progress in Human Geography, 29(5): 562–580.Google Scholar
  36. Guardian. 2017a. “Universities deplore ‘McCarthyism’ as MP demands list of tutors lecturing on Brexit”. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris
  37. Guardian. 2017b. “London university tells students their emails may be monitored”. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/20/university-warns-students-emails-may-be-monitored-kings-college-london-prevent
  38. Ericson, R. V., Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. 1997. Policing the risk society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  39. Haggerty, K. and Ericson, R. 2000. “The surveillant assemblage”, The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4): 605–622.Google Scholar
  40. Hasslebladh, H. and Kallinikos, J. 2000. “The Project of Rationalization: A Critique and Reappraisal of Neo-Institutionalism in Organization Studies”, Organization Studies, 21(4): 697–720.Google Scholar
  41. Heath-Kelly, C. 2013. “Counter-terrorism and the counterfactual: Producing the ‘radicalisation’ discourse and the UK PREVENT strategy”, The British journal of politics and international relations, 15(3): 394–415.Google Scholar
  42. Heath-Kelly, C. and Strausz, E 2018. “Counterterrorism in the NHS: Evaluating Prevent Duty Safeguarding”. Available at https://www.docdroid.net/boB68fG/counter-terrorism-in-the-nhs.pdf
  43. Home Office. 2014. Request a Check. Available at https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outreach/righttowork.ofml
  44. Huffington Post. 2017. “‘Completely Unacceptable’ We Can’t See Terrorists’ WhatsApp Messages, Says Amber Rudd”. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/amber-rudd-whatsapp-terrorists_uk_58d7978fe4b03787d3595d1f
  45. Huysmans, J. 2011. “What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings”, Security Dialogue, 42(4–5): 371–383.Google Scholar
  46. Independent. 2016. “Censorship at Edinburgh University ‘out of control’, says student”. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/censorship-at-edinburgh-university-out-of-control-says-student-a6980311.html
  47. Innovate. 2016. “Radicalisation and Terrorism Funding: Apply for Funding”. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/radicalisation-and-terrorism-prevention-apply-for-funding
  48. Kagiaros, D. 2015. “Protecting ‘national security’ whistleblowers in the Council of Europe: an evaluation of three approaches on how to balance national security with freedom of expression”, The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(4): 408–428.Google Scholar
  49. Latour B. 1996. Aramis or the Love of Technology. Harvard University Press, M.A.: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Levi, M. and Wall, D. S. 2004. “Technologies, Security, and Privacy in the Post-9/11 European Information Society”, Journal of Law and Society, 31(2): 194–220.Google Scholar
  51. Lianos, M. 2003. “Social Control after Foucault”, Surveillance & Society, 1(3): 412–30.Google Scholar
  52. Loader, I. and Walker, N. 2010. Civilising Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lyon, D. 2001. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lyon, D. 2002. “Everyday Surveillance: Personal data and social classifications”, Information, Communication and Society, 5(2): 242–257.Google Scholar
  55. Lyon, D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lyon, D. and Zureik, E. 1996. “Surveillance, privacy, and the new technology”. In D Lyon and E Zureik (eds.) Computers, surveillance, and privacy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, M.N.: 1–18.Google Scholar
  57. Marwick, A. E. 2012. “The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life”, Surveillance & Society, 9(4): 378–393.Google Scholar
  58. Marx, G. T. 2002. “What’s New About the “New Surveillance”? Classifying for Change and Continuity”, Surveillance & Society, 1(1): 9–29.Google Scholar
  59. Mattsson, C., & Säljö, R. 2018. “Violent extremism, national security and prevention. Institutional discourses and their implications for schooling”, British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(1): 109–125.Google Scholar
  60. McGovern, M. 2016. “The university, Prevent and cultures of compliance”. Prometheus, 34(1): 49–62.Google Scholar
  61. McGovern, M. and Tobin, A. 2010. Countering Terror or Counter-Productive: Comparing Irish and British Muslim Experiences of Counter-insurgency Law and Policy. Project Report. Edge Hill University, Ormskirk.Google Scholar
  62. Mirza, H. S. & Meetoo, V. 2012. Respecting Difference: Race, Faith and Culture for Teacher Educators. Institute of Education-London: London.Google Scholar
  63. Moberly, R. 2018. “Confidentiality and Whistleblowing”, North Carolina Law Review, 96(3): 751–788.Google Scholar
  64. PATS project. 2011. “Privacy Awareness through Security Organisation Branding”. Available at http://www.pats-project.eu/.
  65. Peach, C. 1999. “London and New York: contrasts in British and American models of segregation with a comment by Nathan Glazer”, International Journal of Population Geography, 5(5): 319–347.Google Scholar
  66. Sears, A., Davies, I., & Reid, A. D. 2011. “From Britishness to nothingness and back again: Looking for a way forward in citizenship education”. In Mycock, A and McGlynn, C (eds.) Britishness, identity and citizenship: the view from abroad. Bern: Peter Lang: 291–312.Google Scholar
  67. Sewell G, and Barker, J. 2006. “Coercion Versus Care: Using Irony To Make Sense Of Organisational Surveillance”, Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 934–961.Google Scholar
  68. Spiller, K., Awan, I., & Whiting, A. (2018). “‘What does terrorism look like?’: University lecturers’ interpretations of their Prevent duties and tackling extremism in UK universities”, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 11(1): 130–150.Google Scholar
  69. Stanley, T., Guru, S., & Gupta, A. 2018. “Working with prevent: Social work options for cases of ‘radicalisation risk’”, Practice, 30(2): 131–146.Google Scholar
  70. Surveillance Studies Network. 2006. “A Report on the Surveillance Society”, Surveillance Studies Network. Available at: https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/1042390/surveillance-society-full-report-2006.pdf
  71. Surveillance Studies Network. 2010. An Update to a report on the surveillance society UK Information Commissioner. Wilmslow: Information Commissioner’s Office.Google Scholar
  72. Thomas, P. 2017. “Changing experiences of responsibilisation and contestation within counter-terrorism policies: the British Prevent experience”, Policy & Politics, 45(3): 305–321.Google Scholar
  73. Thompson, S. and Genosko, G. 2009. Punched Drunk: Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927–1975. Nova Scotia: Fernwood.Google Scholar
  74. Vlcek, W. 2007. “Surveillance to combat Terrorist Financing in Europe: Whose Liberty, Whose Security”, European Studies, 16(1): 99–119.Google Scholar
  75. Waldron, J. 2003. “Security and liberty: The image of balance”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2): 191–210.Google Scholar
  76. Weber, M. 1983. Max Weber on capitalism, bureaucracy, and religion: a selection of texts. Allen & Unwin Australia.Google Scholar
  77. Webster, C. W. R. 2009. “CCTV policy in the UK: reconsidering the evidence base”, Surveillance and Society, 6(1): 10–22.Google Scholar
  78. White, A. 2011. “The new political economy of private security”, Theoretical Criminology, 16(1): 85–101.Google Scholar
  79. Wilson, D. 2006. “Biometrics, Borders and the Ideal Suspect”. In S Pickering and L Weber (eds.) Borders, mobility and technologies of control. Dordrecht: Springer: 87–109.Google Scholar
  80. Zureik E. 2004. “Governance, Security and Technology: The Case of Biometrics”, Studies in Political Economy, 73(1): 113–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imran Awan
    • 1
  • Keith Spiller
    • 2
  • Andrew Whiting
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Applied CriminologyBirmingham City UniversityBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Birmingham City UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations