Advertisement

State Paternalism and Autonomy

  • Ian Berle
Chapter
  • 21 Downloads
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 41)

Abstract

This chapter examines how state paternalism affects autonomy. Paternalism is described as active and passive, both of which affect personal liberty but can be regarded as beneficial. The ethico-legal issues associated with paternalism are considered in detail and how the state might claim the right to use face recognition technology without consent is examined.

References

  1. Accardo J, Chaudhry Ahmed M (2014) Radiation exposure and privacy concerns surrounding full-body scanners in airports. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 7:198–200. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000168. Accessed 26 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Constitution, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble. Accessed 26 August 2019
  3. BBC News, 04-11-2013 ‘Tesco petrol stations use face-scan tech to target ads’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24803378. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Berle I (2011) Privacy and confidentiality: what’s the difference? J Visual Commun 34(1):43–44. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17453054.2011.550845?journalCode=ijau20. Accessed 26 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CCTV & Surveillance Cameras, https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/privacy-and-cookies/cctv. Accessed 22 Sept 2019
  7. Chesterman S (2011) One nation under surveillance: a new social contract to defend freedom without sacrificing liberty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 9Google Scholar
  8. Collingridge D (1981) The social control of technology. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  9. Curry MR (1997) The digital individual and the private realm. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 87(4):681–699. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8306.00073/abstract. Accessed 26 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyal L, Gough I (1991) A theory of human need. MacMillan Press Limited, Basingstoke, p 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dworkin G (1988) (reprinted 1997) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, p 10Google Scholar
  12. EEOC sues Consol Energy and Consolidation Coal Company for religious discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-25-13d.cfm; and https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-27-15a.cfm. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  13. Fine B (1984) Marx’s capital: ‘commodity production. Palgrave, London, pp 20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish, Birth of the Prison, translated by Alan Sheridan. (First published as ‘Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison’ by Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 1975; Penguin Books 1991)Google Scholar
  15. Gray J (1991) Mill’s conception of happiness. In: Gray J, Smith GW (eds) On liberty in focus. Routledge, London, p 197Google Scholar
  16. Gray M (2003) Urban surveillance and panopticism: will we recognize the facial recognition society? Surveill Soc 1(3):314–330. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/3343. Accessed 26 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbes T (1651) Leviathan. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  18. Kremer J (2014) On the end of freedom in public spaces: legal challenges of wide-area and multiple-sensor surveillance systems. In: Davis F, Mcgarrity N, Williams G (eds) Surveillance, counter-terrorism and comparative constitutionalism. Routledge, Oxford, p 128Google Scholar
  19. Legatum Institute Prosperity Index 2018. http://prosperity.com/#!/ranking. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  20. Mann M (1984) The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results. Eur J Sociol 25(2):185–213 Archives européennes de sociologie 1984, published by Cambridge University Press. www.jstor.org/stable/23999270. Accessed 22 Sept 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McClory J (2010) The new persuaders: an international ranking of soft power. Institute of Government. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders_0.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  22. Mill JS (1859) In: Gray J, Smith GW (eds) (1991) On liberty in focus. Routledge, London, 1991, p 33Google Scholar
  23. Nelson LS (2011) American identified: biometric technology and society. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published by the MIT Press, p 66Google Scholar
  24. Petit P (1996) Freedom as antipower. Ethics 106(3):578–604. University of Chicago Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382272?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 26 August
  25. Pomeroy SB (1975) Goddesses, whores, wives, & slaves: women in classical antiquity. Pimlico 1994Google Scholar
  26. Ponemon Institute National Survey on Data Security Breach Notification 2005. Cached on GoogleGoogle Scholar
  27. Quattrociocchi W, Scala A, Sunstein CR (2016) Echo Chambers on Facebook (June 13, 2016). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795110. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  28. Rawls J (1971) (Rev 1999) A theory of justice. Revised Edition 1999. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Royal Academy of Engineering (2007) Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance Challenges of Technological Change. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports?q=Dilemmas%20of%20Privacy%20and%20Surveillance%20Challenges%20of%20Technological%20Change. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  30. Rule JB (2007) Privacy in peril. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Samuelson P (1999) Property as intellectual property. Stanf Law Rev 1126–1173. Stan Law Rev 52:1125, p 1146–1151. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2137/. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  32. Smart JJC, Williams B (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solove DJ (2011) Nothing to hide: the false trade off between privacy and security. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  34. TSA-OSO Form 1000 (Rev. 1-13-2010) Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44901(c)-(e)Google Scholar
  35. (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc. and Consolidation Coal Company, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00215-IMKGoogle Scholar
  36. United States ‘Secure Flight Program’. http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/secure-flight-program. Accessed 26 Aug 2019
  37. Van de Veer D (1986) Paternalistic intervention: the moral bounds of benevolence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Veak TJ (ed) (2006) Democratizing technology. State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  39. von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitehead JW (2013) A government of wolves: the emerging American Police State. Select Books Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Berle
    • 1
  1. 1.SuttonUK

Personalised recommendations