Skip to main content

Privacy and Surveillance Surveyed

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 41))

Abstract

This chapter considers how surveillance modalities affect privacy. The modalities include government sanctioned CCTV or social networks, each of which create tensions and concerns between the data subject-citizen and the data processor.

The chapter focuses on the wide uses of surveillance and considers the sociological and philosophical responses to the burgeoning levels of surveillance and its effect on personal liberty, especially, when the prevailing political view that increased surveillance and subsequent incursions of personal liberty is a societal good. The chapter also concentrates on autonomy and related privacy issues that are associated with the acquisition of images or audio recordings by selected agencies and how those images or recordings are used or disseminated.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Garfinkel (2000), p. 65.

  2. 2.

    Sullivan (2014).

  3. 3.

    Chesterman (2011), p. 12.

  4. 4.

    Gregory and Simon (2008) and El-Abed (2010).

  5. 5.

    Welinder (2012).

  6. 6.

    Lyon (2003, 2007).

  7. 7.

    Ibid (2003).

  8. 8.

    Brin (1998).

  9. 9.

    Lyon (2003), p. 15 op cit.

  10. 10.

    Agamben (2005).

  11. 11.

    Lyon (2003), p. 34 op cit.

  12. 12.

    Marx (1996), p. 40.

  13. 13.

    Lyon (2003), p. 45 op cit.

  14. 14.

    Tagg (1988).

  15. 15.

    Ibid, pp. 85–87.

  16. 16.

    Whitehead (2013).

  17. 17.

    Solove (2012).

  18. 18.

    Morrison (2015).

  19. 19.

    See Sect. 5.3.

  20. 20.

    Notting Hill Carnival; Football Supporters.

  21. 21.

    See Solove (2011).

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, p. 26.

  24. 24.

    Chesterman (2011), p. 4.

  25. 25.

    Ibid, p. 12.

  26. 26.

    Cited by Chesterman (2011).

  27. 27.

    USA PATRIOT Act: The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. See Edgar (2017).

  28. 28.

    Agamben (2005) op cit.

  29. 29.

    Whitehead (2013) op cit.

  30. 30.

    However, more precisely, public CCTV for surveillance purposes is regulated by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, who encourages compliance to the surveillance camera code of practice; but does not have any powers of enforcement, and any breaches of the code would likely breach human rights law and not data protection law. Moreover, CCTV in shops and company premises needs to comply with data protection law. Whether public CCTV is affected by the Human Rights Act 1998 is another matter that need not be of concern here. Ideally, the Canadian approach would address any contentious use of CCTV in public.

  31. 31.

    To be discussed.

  32. 32.

    Chesterman (2011), pp. 151–153 op cit.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, p. 242.

  34. 34.

    Warren and Brandeis (1890).

  35. 35.

    Chesterman (2011), p. 246 op cit.

  36. 36.

    Similarly, Solove (2011), pp. 24–25 op cit [succinctly notes that] “privacy can be invaded by the disclosure of your deepest secrets. It might also be invaded if you’re watched by a Peeping Tom, even if no secrets are ever revealed to anyone”.

  37. 37.

    Chesterman (2011), p. 250 op cit.

  38. 38.

    To be discussed in Chaps. 7 and 8.

  39. 39.

    Westin (1967).

  40. 40.

    Ibid, p. 31.

  41. 41.

    Gavison (1980), p. 423.

  42. 42.

    Nissenbaum (2010), p. 70.

  43. 43.

    Wacks (1989, revised 1993), p. 14.

  44. 44.

    See Dworkin (1988, reprinted 1997), p. 14.

  45. 45.

    Nissenbaum (2010) op cit.

  46. 46.

    Ibid, p. 231.

  47. 47.

    Dworkin (1988, reprinted 1997), p. 12 op cit.

  48. 48.

    Chesterman (2011), p. 251 op cit.

  49. 49.

    Solove (2011) op cit.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, pp. 100–101.

  51. 51.

    Whitehead (2013), p. 107 op cit.

  52. 52.

    Brin (1998), p. 334.

  53. 53.

    Schwartz and Solove (2014).

  54. 54.

    Brennan and Berle (2011), p. 146.

  55. 55.

    R v Loveridge.

  56. 56.

    Douglas & Anor v Northern and Shell Plc & Anor.

  57. 57.

    Roddy (a minor); Torbay Borough Council v News Group Newspapers. This case centred on whether a 17 year old, who had a child at 13, had reached a level of maturity to decide what was private. My italics.

  58. 58.

    Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.

  59. 59.

    Von Hannover v Germany. My italics.

  60. 60.

    Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany.

  61. 61.

    Schwartz and Solove (2014) op cit. See Sect. 7.4.

  62. 62.

    van der Ploeg (2005).

  63. 63.

    Solove (2011), pp. 157–161; pp. 167–170 op cit.

  64. 64.

    The ‘politicisation of bodily integrity’ is usually gender specific and relates to the women’s rights discourse. I have used the term to broaden its scope and apply it to the biometric discourse in terms of consent and self-determination, which resonates within the women’s rights discourse.

  65. 65.

    Mordini and Petrini (2007), p. 10.

  66. 66.

    See Agamben (2005).

  67. 67.

    Whitehead (2013) op cit, p. 125.

  68. 68.

    See Sect. 2.2.

  69. 69.

    Whitehead (2013), p. 4 op cit.

  70. 70.

    Ibid, pp. 219–232.

  71. 71.

    Nelson (2011).

  72. 72.

    Ibid, p. 3.

  73. 73.

    The term ‘confluence’ is used to convey a mixture that cannot easily be separated.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berle, I. (2020). Privacy and Surveillance Surveyed. In: Face Recognition Technology. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36887-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36887-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36886-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36887-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics