Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Crossnational evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433241233960 |
| Author | Amelia C Arsenault,Sarah E Kreps,Keren LG Snider,Daphna Canetti |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433241233960
Journal of Peace Research
2024, Vol. 61(3) 413 –428
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433241233960
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Cross-
national evidence on the effect of cyberattacks
on public support for surveillance
Amelia C Arsenault
Government Department, Cornell University
Sarah E Kreps
Government Department, Cornell University
Keren LG Snider
Department of Politics & Communication, Hadassah Academic College; School of Political Science,
University of Haifa
Daphna Canetti
School of Political Science, University of Haifa
Abstract
While conventional terrorism has long been associated with enhanced support for surveillance, scholars have not
determined whether variation in the type and outcome of terror attacks, including those emanating from cyberspace,
influences public support for these policies. Further, existing studies typically examine public opinion in a single
country, thereby failing to investigate cross-national trends in support for surveillance. In this article, we outline
a theoretical relationship between cyberattacks and support for surveillance measures and then, through survey
experiments conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, explore whether variation in both the
type (conventional or cyberterrorism) and outcome (non-lethal or lethal outcomes) of attacks influences support for
a range of surveillance tactics. We find that while participants do not base their support for surveillance on attack
type or outcome and do not differentiate between surveillance tactics when formulating their preferences, there
are considerable cross-national differences in support. Participants from Israel generally responded more favorably
to all forms of surveillance, independent of experimental treatment, with British respondents demonstrating high
levels of support for CCTV cameras. American respondents, however, were generally less supportive of surveillance
measures across treatments, with the differences being most notable in their relative reluctance to support the use
of CCTV cameras. These findings have important implications not only for the sustainability of national policies
but also for international collaboration to manage emerging risks.
Keywords
exposure to cyberterrorism, exposure to terrorism, surveillance policy, survey experiment
Corresponding author:
aa2758@cornell.edu
1233960JPR0010.1177/00223433241233960Journal of Peace ResearchArsenault et al.
research-article2024
Regular Article
414 journal of P R 61(3)
Introduction
In recent years, cyberattacks have emerged as a novel threat.
In 2021, in its first threat assessment since 2019, the US
Office of the Director of National Intelligence observed
that ‘states’ increasing use of cyber operations as a tool of
national power, including increasing use by militaries
around the world, raises the prospect of more destructive
and disruptive cyber activity’ (Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, 2021: 20). The report went on to
describe both non-state and state actors’ growing capacity
to use cyber to disrupt infrastructure networks, interfere
with business, and threaten national security.
In light of the growing number of cyberattacks and
the adoption of countermeasures to thwart them, schol-
ars have gauged public attitudes about policies that aim
to counter cyberterrorism (Haner etal., 2020; Norris,
2017; Viscusi and Zeckhauser, 2003; Westerlund etal.,
2021; Shandler and Canetti, 2024). In democratic
states, the sustainability of policies hinges on public sup-
port, where failure to reconcile public sentiment with
policy can tarnish legitimacy and erode trust in govern-
ment (Tomz and Weeks, 2020). It is therefore crucial
that democracies assess public attitudes about policies
that claim to minimize the threat of terrorism. However,
few studies have explored whether variation in the type
and lethality of terror threats influences public support
for surveillance measures. Indeed, the growing risk of
sophisticated cyberattacks has raised the question of
whether the policy connections – and public support,
opposition, or ambivalence – between terrorism and
surveillance hold in this new context. Further, existing
research has typically examined public opinion in a sin-
gle country, thereby failing to investigate cross-national
trends in public support for surveillance.
Using a series of survey experiments conducted in the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this
research explores how variation in the type of terror
attack (conventional versus cyberterrorism) and the out-
come of the attack (lethal versus non-lethal effects),
influences support for a range of surveillance policies. We
find that while participants do not base their support for
surveillance on attack type or outcome and do not dif-
ferentiate between surveillance tactics when formulating
their preferences, there are considerable cross-national
differences in support. Respondents from Israel generally
responded more favorably to surveillance initiatives inde-
pendent of experimental treatment, with the highest lev-
els of support for the use of closed-circuit television
(CCTV) cameras and state monitoring of social media.
British respondents also expressed high levels of support
for CCTV cameras and similar beliefs about the inevita-
bility of privacy infringements as their Israeli counter-
parts. American respondents, however, were generally
less supportive of surveillance measures across treat-
ments, the differences being most notable in their rela-
tive reluctance to support the use of CCTV cameras.
This research makes several contributions. First, by
comparing three democratic countries with similar cyber
capabilities, we can assess the plausibility of cybersecu-
rity approaches that depend on international collabora-
tion. Differences in support for surveillance may affect
the degree to which members can share threat data and
intelligence, potentially undermining the development
of effective cyber countermeasures. Second, we contrib-
ute to research on public attitudes toward cyber escala-
tion and terrorism, which have largely focused on
aggressive retaliation but not the connection between
attacks and the adoption of surveillance measures that
have a direct impact on the public (Kreps and Das,
2017; Kreps and Schneider, 2019; Shandler etal., 2021).
Third, we answer the call for empirically rigorous
research that explores the human dimension of cyber
conflict (Shandler and Canetti, 2024). Finally, the cross-
national comparison between the US, UK, and Israel
complements prior studies on public attitudes regarding
cyberattacks, where existing research has largely been
conducted on American participants (Tomz and Weeks,
2020).
Cyberattacks and state responses
Scholars and practitioners have long argued that threats
to national security may generate support for policies
that undermine democratic norms and civil liberties.
Highlighting the potential trade-off between security
and freedom, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor warned that the 9/11 attacks would require
the United States ‘to re-examine some of our laws per-
taining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigra-
tion, and so on’ (Greenhouse, 2001). Major attacks
often enhance citizen’s threat perceptions, tilting the bal-
ance toward support for more aggressive policies, includ-
ing those that compromise civil liberties in the form of
more intrusive surveillance measures (Dietrich and
Crabtree, 2019; Huddy etal., 2005, 2007). Davis and
Silver (2004: 29) observe that efforts to safeguard
national security have required ‘Americans to accept cer-
tain restrictions on their freedom – more surveillance of
their papers and communications, more searches of
their belongings, possible detention without a writ of
To continue reading
Request your trial