Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Surveillance, New Penology and New Resistance: Towards the Criminalisation of Resistance?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reloading Data Protection

Abstract

Surveillance is changing nowadays alongside new surveillance technologies and practices. ‘New’ surveillance is reframing the relationship between the ‘surveillant’ and the ‘surveilled’, while creating misconceptions about the way surveillance interacts with and impacts on society. Similarly, criminal surveillance is strongly influenced by these dynamics and paradigms of social deviance and dangerousness are subject to new tensions. This contribution illustrates the changes surveillance, crime, deviance and resistance are undergoing. Most of all, it shows that new surveillance has a huge impact on the ‘old’ categories of deviance and social dangerousness and tends to turn resistance into criminalisation. These considerations arise when looking at new, potential forms of surveillance that could be exercised using social media like Facebook.

This chapter is based on research undertaken in the framework of the European Commission FP7 Project IRISS: Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lyon (2001, p. 2).

  2. 2.

    Lyon (1994, 2001, p. 3).

  3. 3.

    Monahan (2010, pp. 91–110); Haggerty and Samatas (2010).

  4. 4.

    Lyon (2007, p. 14).

  5. 5.

    Lyon (2001, p. 2).

  6. 6.

    Oxford Dictionaries (2013).

  7. 7.

    Surveillance scholars have identified several models of surveillance which oppose or differ from the idea of the Panopticon, such as the ‘superpanopticon’ (Poster); ‘global panopticon’ (Gill); ‘ban-opticon’ (Bigo); ‘synopticon’ (Mathiesen); ‘neo-panopticon’ (Mann), ‘omnicon’ (Goombridge); ‘urban panopticon’ (Koskela); etc. See Haggerty (2006, pp. 23–45).

  8. 8.

    Foucault (1975).

  9. 9.

    Foucault (1975, p. 201).

  10. 10.

    Function creep refers to the use of surveillance for purposes and targets beyond those originally envisaged. See for example Marx (1988).

  11. 11.

    Simon (2005, p. 3).

  12. 12.

    Elmer (2012, pp. 21–29).

  13. 13.

    Lyon (2010, pp. 325–338); Bauman and Lyon (2013).

  14. 14.

    Simon (2005).

  15. 15.

    Surveillance of the surveilled over the surveillant goes under the name of ‘sousveillance’ (Mann et al. 2003, pp. 331–355).

  16. 16.

    Foucault (1975, p. 175–176).

  17. 17.

    Haggerty (2006, pp. 23–45).

  18. 18.

    Poster (1990, p. 93).

  19. 19.

    Mathiesen (1997, pp. 215–234; 1999, pp. 1–36).

  20. 20.

    Andrejevic (2005, pp. 479–497); Reeves (2012, pp. 235–248).

  21. 21.

    Monahan (2010, p. 97).

  22. 22.

    Lyon (2007, p. 98).

  23. 23.

    For instance, as Norris and Armstrong reported, black young men who are casually dressed have a higher chance of being the target of surveillance in our societies. Norris and Gary(1999, pp. 108–116).

  24. 24.

    Torpey argues that “thin surveillance monitors our movements, our business transactions, and our interactions with government, but generally without constraining our mobility per se. Thick surveillance, on the other hand, involves confinement to delineated and often fortified spaces, in which observation is enhanced by a limitation of the range of mobility of those observed”. Torpey (2007, pp. 116–119, p. 117).

  25. 25.

    Torpey (2007).

  26. 26.

    Monahan (2008, pp. 217–226, p. 220).

  27. 27.

    The marginalising and excluding features of surveillance are reflected in many of the urban securisation projects implemented in developing countries such as Brazil. See for example Kanashiro (2008, pp. 270–289); Melgaço (2001).

  28. 28.

    Lyon (2003).

  29. 29.

    As Monahan argues, “The dominant manifestations of surveillance-based control today are disturbingly antidemocratic because of the way they sort populations unequally, produce conditions and identities of marginality, impinge upon the life chances of marginalized populations, and normalize and fortify neoliberal word orders”. Monahan, “Surveillance as governance. Social inequality and the pursuit of democratic surveillance”, p. 100.

  30. 30.

    Lianos (2003, pp. 412–430).

  31. 31.

    Monahan (2008).

  32. 32.

    Lyon et al. (2012, p. 423) See also Lyon (2003).

  33. 33.

    Lyon (2001, pp. 171–181).

  34. 34.

    Deleuze (1990/2003, pp. 240–246).

  35. 35.

    Surveillance Studies Network (2006, pp. 13–15).

  36. 36.

    Feeley and Simon (1992, p. 451).

  37. 37.

    Feeley and Simon (1992, p. 452).

  38. 38.

    Feeley and Simon (1992, p. 452).

  39. 39.

    Cheliotis (2006).

  40. 40.

    McCulloch and Pickering (2009, pp. 628–645).

  41. 41.

    Van Brakel and Hert (2011, pp. 163–192, p. 3.); De Goede (2008).

  42. 42.

    Zedner (2007, pp. 261–281, pp. 262).

  43. 43.

    Zedner (2003); Hudson (2003); Ericson and Haggerty (1997).

  44. 44.

    Ashworth and Zedner (2008 pp. 21–51).

  45. 45.

    Sewell (2006, pp. 934–961).

  46. 46.

    Cohen (1979, p. 344).

  47. 47.

    Cohen (1979, p. 344).

  48. 48.

    Cohen (1979, p. 344).

  49. 49.

    In fact, Foucault argued that “discipline requires enclosure”. Michel Foucault, Surveiller et punir, p. 166.

  50. 50.

    Lianos and Douglas (2000, pp. 261–278). Lianos describes ‘dangerization’ as “the tendency to perceive and analyse the world through categories of menace. It leads to continuous detection of threats and assessment of adverse probabilities, to the prevalence of defensive perceptions over optimistic ones and o the dominance of fear and anxieties over ambition and desire”. Lianos, and Douglas, “Dangerization and the end of deviance”, p. 276.

  51. 51.

    Lyon (2003, p. 161); Misa et al. (2003).

  52. 52.

    Martin et al. (2009, pp. 231–232, p. 216).

  53. 53.

    Marx (2005, p. 377).

  54. 54.

    Marx (2005, p. 342).

  55. 55.

    Foucault (1994, pp. 1–20, p. 12).

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Simon (2005).

  58. 58.

    Marx (2003, pp. 369–390, pp. 374–384).

  59. 59.

    Hert and Gutwirth (2006, pp. 61–104).

  60. 60.

    Haggerty and Ericson p. 21.

  61. 61.

    Leistert (2012, pp. 441–456).

  62. 62.

    Facebook (2013).

  63. 63.

    Andrejevic (2007); Rachel (2011, pp. 111–129).

  64. 64.

    Roosendaal (2012, pp. 3–19); Roosendaal (2013).

  65. 65.

    Marx (2003, pp. 375–377).

  66. 66.

    Schulze (2012).

  67. 67.

    Hill (2012).

  68. 68.

    White (2012).

  69. 69.

    Bennett (2012).

  70. 70.

    “Is not joining Facebook a sign you’re a psychopath? Some employers and psycologists say staying away from social media is ‘suspicious’”, Daily Mail Online, 6 August 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184658/Is-joining-Facebook-sign-youre-psychopath-Some-employers-psychologists-say-suspicious.html (last accessed 1 March 2013).

  71. 71.

    “Facebook abstainers could be labeled suspicious” Slashdot, 29 July 2012, http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious (last accessed 1 March 2013).

  72. 72.

    Anders Behring Breivik was convicted of mass murderer and terrorism in 2012, further to the 2011 Norway attacks which killed 77 people.

  73. 73.

    James Eagan Holmes is the suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred in July 2012 in Colorado, which killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

  74. 74.

    Lianos (2003, p. 421–422).

References

  • Andrejevic, Mark. 2005. The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveillance & Society 2 (4): 479–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, Mark. 2007. iSpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, Andrew, and Lucia Zedner. 2008. Defending the criminal law: Reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure and sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (1): 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Zygmunt, and David Lyon. 2013. Liquid surveillance. A conversation. Cambridge Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Catherine. 2012. Not on Facebook? What kind of sad sicko are you?, The Guardian, 12 August 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/catherine-bennett-facebook-psycopaths. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Cheliotis, Leonidas K. 2006. How iron is the iron cage of New Penology? The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy. Punishment & Society 8:313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Stanley. 1979. The punitive city: notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crisis 3:344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Goede, Marieke. 2008. The politics of preemption and the war on terror in Europe. European Journal of International Relations. 14 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, Paul, and Serge Gutwirth. 2006. Privacy, data protection and law enforcement. Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. In Privacy and the criminal law, In Anthony Duff Erik Claes, and Serge Gutwirth. ed. Oxford: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1990/2003. Pourparlers 1972–1990, 240–246. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubrofsky, Rachel E. 2011. Surveillance on reality television and Facebook: From authenticity to flowing data. Communication Theory 2 (2): 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmer, Greg. 2012. Panopticon-discipline-control. In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, ed. David Lyon, Kirstie Ball and Kevin Haggerty, 21–29. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, Richard V., and Kevin D. Haggerty. 1997. Policing the risk society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facebook. 2013. Facebook Newsroom, key facts. http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Feeley, Malcolm M., and Jonathan Simon. 1992. The New Penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30 (4): 451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. 1994. Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law. In The Futures of Criminology, In D. Nelkin. ed. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel. 1975. Surveiller et Punir. Naissance de la prison, Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michael. 1994. The ethic of care of the self as a practice of freedom. In The final Foucault, In James Bernauer, and David Rasmussen, ed. 1–20. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, Kevin D. 2006. Tear down the walls: on demolishing the panopticon. In Theorizing surveillance. The panopticon and beyond, In Davind Lyon, ed. 23–45. USA: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, Kevin D., and Minas Samatas. 2010. Surveillance and Democracy. New York: Routledge-Cavendish Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson. The new politics of surveillance and visibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Kashmir. 2012. Beware, tech abandoners. People without Facebook accounts are ‘suspicious’, Forbes, 8 June 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Hudson, Barbara. 2003. Justice in the risk society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanashiro, Marta Mourão. 2008. Surveillance cameras in Brazil: Exclusion, mobility, regulation, and the new meanings of security. Surveillance & Society 5 (3): 270–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistert, Oliver. 2012. Resistance against cyber-surveillance within social movements and how surveillance adapts. Surveillance & Society 9 (4): 441–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, Michalis, and Mary Douglas. 2000. Dangerization and the end of deviance. British Journal of Criminology 40 (2): 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, Michalis. 2003. Social control after Foucault. Surveillance & Society 1 (3): 412–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 1994. The electronic eye. The rise of surveillance society. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2001a. Facing the future. Seeking ethics for everyday surveillance. Ethics and Information Technology 3:171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2001b. Surveillance society. Monitoring everyday life, (Issues in Society). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2003a. Surveillance after September 11. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2003b. Surveillance as social sorting. Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance Studies, An overview. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2010. Liquid surveillance: The contribution of Zygmunt Bauman to surveillance studies. International Political Sociology 4:325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David, Kirstie Ball, and Kevin Haggerty, eds. 2012. Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, Steve, Jason Nolan, and Barry Wellman. 2003. Sousveillance: Inventing and using wereable computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance & Society 1 (3): 331–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Aaron K., Rosamunde E. Van Brakel, and Daniel J. Bernhard. 2009. Understanding resistance to digital surveillance. Towards a multi-disciplinary, multi-actor framework. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 231–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 1988. Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Barkley: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 2003. A tack in the shoe: neutralizing and resisting the new surveillance. Journal of Social Issues 59 (2): 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 2004. What’s new about the “new surveillance”?: Classifying for change and continuity. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 17 (1): 18–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 2005. Seeing hazily (but not darkly) through the lens: some recent empirical studies of surveillance technologies. Law & Social Enquiry 30 (2): 377 (Spring).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen, Thomas. 1997. The Viewer society: Michael Foucault’s “Panopticon” resivited. Theoretical Criminology 1 (2): 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen, Thomas. 1999. On globalisation of control: Towards an integrated surveillance system in Europe. A Statewatch Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, Jude, and Sharon Pickering. 2009. Pre-crime and counter-terrorism: Imagining future crime in the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Criminology 49:628–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melgaço, Lucas. 2001. The injustices of urban securization in the Brazilian city of Campinas. Spatial Justice 5. available at http://jssj.org/media/dossier_focus_vt7.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2013.

  • Misa, Thomas, Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg, eds. 2003. Modernity and Technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, Torin. 2008. Editorial: surveillance and inequality (eds. Torin Monahan and Jill Fisher). Surveillance & Society 5 (3): 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, Torin. 2010. Surveillance as governance. Social inequality and the pursuit of democratic surveillance. In Surveillance and Democracy, In Kevin D. Haggerty, and Minas Samatas, ed. 91–110. New York: Routledge-Cavendish Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Clive, and Armstrong Gary. 1999. The maximum surveillance society. The rise of CCTV, 108–116. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Dictionaries. 2013. Surveillance. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surveillance?q=surveillance. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Poster, Mark. 1990. The mode of information: poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, Joshua. 2012. If you see something, say something: Lateral surveillance and the use of responsibility. Surveillance & Society 10 (3/4): 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosendaal, Arnold. 2012. We are all connected to Facebook … by Facebook. In European Data Protection in Good Health?, ed. Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, Paul De Hert and Yves Poullet, 3–19. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roosendaal, Arnold. 2013. Facebook tracks and traces everyone: Like this! Tilburg Law School, Research Paper No. 03/2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1717563. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Schulze, Katrin. 2012. Machen sich Facebook-verweigerer verdächtig? Der Tagesspiegel, 24 July 2012. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/nach-dem-attentat-von-denver-kein-facebook-profil-kein-job-angebot/6911648–2.html. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Sewell, Graham. 2006. Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review 31 (4): 934–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Bart. 2005. The return of Panopticism: Supervision, subjection and the new surveillance. Surveillance & Society 3 (1): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surveillance Studies Network. 2006. A Report on the Surveillance Society, Information Commissioner’s Office. Wilmslow: UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torpey, John. 2007. Through thick and thin: surveillance after 9/11. Contemporary Sociology 36 (2): 116–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Brakel, Rosamunde, and Paul De Hert. 2011. Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: Understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. Journal of Police Studies 20 (3): 163–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Martha C. 2012. Does not having a Facebook page make you ‘suspicious’ to employers?, Time, 8 August 2012. http://business.time.com/2012/08/08/does-not-having-a-facebook-page-make-you-suspicious-to-employers/. Accessed 1 March 2013.

  • Zedner, Lucia. 2003. Pre-crime and post-crime criminology?, ibid. Barbara Hudson, Justice in the risk society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, Lucia. 2007. Pre-crime and post-crime criminology? Theoretical Criminology 11 (2): 261–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS), Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Antonella Galetta

Authors
  1. Antonella Galetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonella Galetta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galetta, A. (2014). New Surveillance, New Penology and New Resistance: Towards the Criminalisation of Resistance?. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Reloading Data Protection. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7540-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation