Internet surveillance after Snowden. A critical empirical study of computer experts’ attitudes on commercial and state surveillance of the Internet and social media post-Edward Snowden

Published date13 November 2017
Pages412-444
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-01-2016-0004
Date13 November 2017
AuthorChristian Fuchs,Daniel Trottier
Subject MatterInformation & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information & communications technology
Internet surveillance
after Snowden
A critical empirical study of computer experts
attitudes on commercial and state surveillance
of the Internet and social media
post-Edward Snowden
Christian Fuchs
Communication and Media Research Institute and Westminster Institute for
Advanced Studies, University of Westminster, London, UK, and
Daniel Trottier
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to present resultsof a study that focused on the question of how computer and
data expertsthink about Internet and social media surveillanceafter Edward Snowdens revelations about the
existenceof mass-surveillance systems of the Internet such as Prism,XKeyscore and Tempora. Computer and
data expertsviews are of particularrelevance because they are confronted day by day with questions about
the processingof personal data, privacy and data protection.
Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted twofocus groups with a total of ten experts
based in London.As London is consideredby some as the surveillance capital of the world, and has a thriving
Internetindustry, it provided a well-suited context.
Findings The focus group discussions featured three topics that are of crucial importance for
understanding Internet and social media surveillance: the political economy surveillance in general;
surveillancein the context of the Snowden revelations; and the question what the bestpolitical reactions are to
the existence of a surveillance-industrialcomplex that results in political and economic controlof the Internet
and social media. The focus groupsprovided indications that computer and data experts are pre-eminently
informed on how Internet surveillance works, are capableof critically assessing its implications for society
and have ideasabout on what should be done politically.
Originality/value Studies of privacy and surveillance afterEdward Snowdens revelations have taken
on a new dimension: Large-scale covert surveillance is conducted in a collaborative endeavour of secret
services, private communications corporations and security companies. It has become evident that a
surveillance-industrialInternet surveillance complex exists, in which capitalist communicationsand security
corporationsand state institutions collaborate.
Keywords Social media, Internet, Surveillance, Privacy, Data protection, Edward Snowden
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Surveillance is an inherent feature of modern society. It involves activities of state
institutions such as secret servicesand the police that monitor criminals, political activists,
The research presented in this paper was conducted as part of the EU FP7 research project PACT
(www.projectpact.eu), Grant Agreement Number 285635.
JICES
15,4
412
Received30 January 2016
Revised1 May 2016
Accepted9 June 2016
Journalof Information,
Communicationand Ethics in
Society
Vol.15 No. 4, 2017
pp. 412-444
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-01-2016-0004
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
enemies of the state, as well as companies that track workers, customers and competitors
(Ball et al., 2012;Fuchs,2011, 2013a;Lyon, 2007). The purpose of surveillance is not only to
collect data but also to use this datato exert social control. The rise of consumer culture and
computing have in the twentieth century brought about some qualitative changes of
surveillance so thatit has become more networked, ubiquitous, focused oneveryday life and
consumption and organisedin real time.
In June 2013, Edward Snowden revealed with the help of The Guardian the existence of
large-scale Internet and communications surveillance systems such as Prism, XKeyscore
and Tempora. According to the leaked documents, the National Security Agency (NSA) in
the PRISM programme obtained direct access to user data from seven online/ICT
companies: AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Paltalk, Skype, Yahoo! (The
Guardian, 2013a). The Powerpoint slides that Edward Snowden leaked refer to data
collection directlyfrom the servers of these USA Service Providers(The Guardian, 2013a).
Snowden also revealed the existence of a surveillance system called XKeyScore that the
NSA can use for reading e-mails, tracking Web browsing and usersbrowsing histories,
monitoring social media activity,online searches, online chat, phone calls and online contact
networks and following the screens of individual computers. According to the leaked
documents, XKeyScorecan search both meta- and content-data (XKeyscore,2013).
The documents that Snowdenleaked also showed that the Government Communications
Headquarter (GCHQ), a British intelligenceagency, monitored and collected communication
phone and Internet data from bre optic cables and shared such data with the NSA (The
Guardian, 2013b). According to the leak, the GCHQfor example stores phone calls, e-mails,
Facebook postings and the history of userswebsite access for up to 30 days and analyses
these data (The Guardian, 2013b).Further documents indicated that in coordination with the
GCHQ, also intelligence services in Germany (Bundesnachrichtendienst BND), France
(Direction Générale de la SécuritéExtérieure DGSE), Spain (Centro Nacional de Inteligencia,
CNI), and Sweden (Försvarets radioanstalt FRA) developed similar capacities (The
Guardian, 2013c).
The study presented in this paper is set in a British context. Snowdens revelations were
rst published in the British broadsheet newspaper The Guardian and therefore received
high public attention in this country, which makes a study conducted in a UK context
particularly relevant. As in many other countries, Britain has also experienced
intensication and extensionof surveillance after 9/11. This development has been based on
governmentsassumptionthat an augmented and expanded use of surveillance technologies
can detect and prevent terrorism.
The Regulation of InvestigatoryPowers Act 2000 extended government bodiescapacity
to monitor society, including buildings, vehicles, telephone communication, Internet
communication and postal communications. After 9/11, this Act was amended multiple
times to extend surveillance power. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 introduced the
possibility of control orders that can ban citizens suspected of terrorist activities from
undertaking certainactivities or can put them under constant surveillance. After the London
bombings that took place on July 7, 2006, the Terrorism Act 2006 was introduced.It enabled
the police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 28 days without raising criminal charges.
The EU Data Retention Directive mandated that communications corporations store all
meta-data of communications for at least six months and a maximum of 24 months. After
the European Court of Justice had found that this Directiveviolated the right to privacy, the
UK Parliament passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 to keep up
data retention in the UK. In November 2015, the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill was
Internet
surveillance
after Snowden
413
published. It aims at extending the government capacities for targeted and mass
surveillance of communications.
What is the British publics opiniontowards Snowdens revelations? A survey conducted
by Angus Reid Institute in 2013 showed that 60 per cent of the 2,000 British respondents
thought that Edward Snowden was ahero. They argued that he should be commended for
letting the public know that governments are running electronic surveillance programmes
that threaten peoples privacy(Angus Reid Institute, 2013). In total, 64 per cent said theydid
not trust the British Government tobe a good guardian of citizenspersonal information. In
a 2014 survey, the polling company Ipsos Mori found that 85 per cent of the 1,958 British
respondents said that it was essential or important that their Internet browsing behaviour
remains private (RT online, 2014). A YouGov poll[1] conducted in 2015 showed that 72 per
cent of the respondents familiar with the Snowden revelations distrusted that the police
responsibly deals with the data it gathers from the Internet. In total, 51 per cent distrusted
intelligence servicesand 69 per cent the Home Ofce and ministries.
Various scholars have worked on the critical analysis of Internet and social media
surveillance (Andrejevic,2007, 2013;Fuchs et al., 2012;Fuchs and Trottier,2013;Mathiesen,
2013;Trottier,2012, 2014;Trottier and Fuchs, 2014). Given the intensicationand extension
of surveillance and law-and-order-politics after 9/11 (Ball and Webster, 2003;Chomsky,
2011;Lyon, 2003;Mathiesen,2013;Rockmore, 2011). Snowdens revelations did not come as
a surprise. Secret servicesInternet monitoring uses forms of Deep Packet Inspection
surveillance that have existed before Snowdens revelations (Fuchs, 2013b). What came
however as a surprise for many is the extent of internationalsurveillance and the dimension
it has taken. We can therefore without a doubt assert that twenty-rst century information
society is not only a capitalistsociety but also a mass surveillance society.
The task of this paper is to study how data and computer professionals think about
commercial and state surveillance of the Internet and social media in the age of Edward
Snowden. It reports the ndings of focus group research that was conducted in London in
2014, a year after Snowdens revelations. It is of particular interest to interrogate how data
and computer experts think about Snowden and surveillance because they are the type of
professionals who bestunderstand how digital surveillance works technologically. Theyare
themselves frequently confronted with issues concerning the processing of personal data,
privacy and data protection.
Section 2 briey discussesliterature about surveillance after Snowden. Section 3 explains
the studys empirical methodology.Section 4 presents the main ndings. Section 5 provides
an overall interpretationand draws conclusions.
2. Surveillance after Snowden
The Snowden revelations have become an important topic in the study of public opinion,
privacy and surveillance,Internet communication, journalism and the publicsphere.
First, there have been studiesconcerned with public opinion. Bakir et al. (2015) report the
ndings of several empirical studies attitudes on surveillance after Snowden in Britain and
the EU: In the UK and the EU, there are especially concerns about deep packet inspection
(DPI) Internet surveillance (see Fuchs, 2013b for a critical analysis of DPI Internet
surveillance). In the UK, especially younger people and ethnic minorities are concerned
about state surveillance.All age groups, but especially citizens older than 55, are concerned
about commercial surveillance.
Based on a Pew survey of attitudes towards surveillance in the USA, researchers in
China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and Taiwan conducted
similar quantitative surveys and comparedthe results. In the US survey, 45 per cent of the
JICES
15,4
414

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT