Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reforming European Data Protection Law pp 271–289Cite as

Privacy and Security – On the Evolution of a European Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((ISDP,volume 20))

Abstract

Privacy and security have long been framed as incommensurable concepts that had to be traded off against each other. While such a notion is rather under-complex, it has been quite persistent. In recent years, however, the relation has undergone a transformation and is now apparently conceived of as a technological issue that is set to be resolved through privacy by design. This paper retraces, through an analysis of EU security research funding, how this shift has come about, and critically assesses its potential to eventually resolve the conflict between privacy and security in a world of data-driven security measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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.

    Marc van Lieshout et al., “Reconciling Privacy and Security,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 26 (2013).

  2. 2.

    Govert Valkenburg. “The Trade-Off Model Between Privacy and Security From a Sociotechnical Perspective. Paper presented at Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference, Brussels, 22–24 January.” 2014.

  3. 3.

    see for instance Colin J. Bennett, “What Happens When You Book an Airline Ticket? The Collection and Processing of Passenger Data Post-9/11,” in Global Surveillance and Policing. Borders, Security, Identity, ed. Elia Zureik and Mark B. Salter (Cullompton/Portland: Willan, 2005); Matthias Leese, “Blurring the Dimensions of Privacy? Law Enforcement and Trusted Traveler Programs,” Computer Law & Security Review 29 (2013); Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford: Stanford Law Books, 2010); Anastassia Tsoukala, “Risk-focused Security Policies and Human Rights. The Impossible Symbiosis,” in Mapping Transatlantic Security Relations. The EU, Canada, and the War on Terror, ed. Mark B. Salter (London/New York: Routledge, 2010).

  4. 4.

    J. Peter Burgess. “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research.” Paper presented at the Workshop Ethical Issues in Security Research – a Practical Approach, Brussels, 29 September, 2011.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.; ECORYS. “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report.” 2009; Didier Bigo and Julien Jeandesboz. “The EU and the European Security Industry: Questioning the ‘Public-Private Dialogue’. INEX Policy Brief No. 5.” 2010.

  6. 6.

    It should be noted, however, that the notion of a post-9/11 ‘break’ in terms of security policy has been contested such that recent developments should rather be seen as part of a larger historical trajectory. See David Lyon, “Airports as Data Filters: Converging Surveillance Systems after September 11th,” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 1 (2003).

  7. 7.

    European Union. “Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model.” 2010, 14–16.

  8. 8.

    For an overview of Horizon 2020, see http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ (last accessed 26 February 2014).

  9. 9.

    European Commission. “Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact Assessment. Accompanying the Communication from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’.” SEC(2011) 1427 final, 30 November, 2011.

  10. 10.

    Bigo and Jeandesboz, “The EU and the European Security Industry: Questioning the ‘Public-Private Dialogue’. INEX Policy Brief No. 5.”; Ben Hayes, NeoConOpticon. The EU Security-Industrial Complex (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute/Statewatch, 2009); Ben Hayes, Arming Big Brother: The EU’s Security Research Programme (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute/Statewatch, 2006).

  11. 11.

    Group of Personalities in the Field of Security Research. “Research for a Secure Europe. Report of the Group of Personalities in the Field of Security Research.” 2004.

  12. 12.

    European Security: High Level Study on Threats Responses and Relevant Technologies. “Deliverable D6-1 (Final Report): New European Approaches to Counter Terrorism, 21 March.” 2006.

  13. 13.

    European Security Research Advisory Board. “Meeting the Challenge: the European Security Research Agenda. A Report from the European Security Research Advisory Board.” 2006.

  14. 14.

    European Security Research & Innovation Forum. “ESRIF Final Report, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/files/esrif_final_report_en.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014).” 2009.

  15. 15.

    Bigo and Jeandesboz, “The EU and the European Security Industry: Questioning the ‘Public-Private Dialogue’. INEX Policy Brief No. 5,” 6.

  16. 16.

    European Security Research Advisory Board, “Meeting the Challenge: the European Security Research Agenda. A Report from the European Security Research Advisory Board,” 8.

  17. 17.

    Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4 (1890).

  18. 18.

    Irwin Altman, “Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific?,” Journal of Social Issues 33 (1977): 67.

  19. 19.

    Alan F. Westin, “Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy,” Journal of Social Issues 59 (2003): 431.

  20. 20.

    Priscilla M. Regan, “Response to Bennett: Also in Defence of Privacy,” Surveillance & Society 8 (2011): 498.

  21. 21.

    Michael Friedewald et al., “Privacy, Data Protection and Emerging Sciences and Technologies: Towards a Common Framework,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 23 (2010): 62.

  22. 22.

    Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life.

  23. 23.

    European Commission. “Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020: A strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.” COM(2010) 2020 final, 3 March, 2010.

  24. 24.

    European Commission. “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Rules for the Participation and Dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020)’.” COM(2011) 810 final, 30 November, 2011, 2.

  25. 25.

    European Commission, “Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact Assessment. Accompanying the Communication from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’,” 7.

  26. 26.

    ECORYS, “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report,” xvii.

  27. 27.

    European Commission. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Action Plan for an Innovative and Competitive Security Industry.” COM(2012) 417 final, 26 July, 2012.

  28. 28.

    European Commission. “EU Security Research: Safeguarding Society, Boosting Growth.” 2012.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 1.

  30. 30.

    Burgess, “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research,” 1.

  31. 31.

    European Commission. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.” COM(2011) 808 final, 30 November, 2011, 2.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    ECORYS, “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report,” v.

  34. 34.

    European Commission, “EU Security Research: Safeguarding Society, Boosting Growth,” 2.

  35. 35.

    ECORYS, “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report,” x.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., 38.

  37. 37.

    European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Action Plan for an Innovative and Competitive Security Industry,” 2.

  38. 38.

    ECORYS, “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report,” 51–60.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., xvii.

  40. 40.

    European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Action Plan for an Innovative and Competitive Security Industry,” 3.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., 5.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    see for instance Louise Amoore, “Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror,” Antipode 41 (2009); Florian Geyer, “Taking Stock: Databases and Systems of Information Exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice,” Challenge Research Paper No. 9 (2008); Leese, “Blurring the Dimensions of Privacy? Law Enforcement and Trusted Traveler Programs.”; Gary T. Marx and Glenn W. Muschert, “Personal Information, Borders, and the New Surveillance Studies,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (2007); Paul de Hert and Rocco Bellanova, Transatlantic Cooperation on Travelers’ Data Processing: From Sorting Countries to Sorting Individuals (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011).

  44. 44.

    see for instance Martijn van Otterlo, “A Machine Learning View on Profiling,” in Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn. The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology, ed. Mireille Hildebrandt and Katja de Vries (Milton Park/New York: Routledge, 2013); Colleen McCue, Data Mining and Predictive Analysis. Intelligence Gathering and Crime Analysis (Burlington/Oxford: Elsevier, 2007); Evelien de Pauw et al., eds., Technology-led Policing (Antwerpen/Apeldoorn/Portland: Maklu, 2011).

  45. 45.

    David Wright, “A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology,” Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2011).

  46. 46.

    van Lieshout et al., “Reconciling Privacy and Security,” 120.

  47. 47.

    European Union. “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” 2000/C 364/01, 18 December, 2000.

  48. 48.

    European Union, “Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model.”

  49. 49.

    European Council. “The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens.” Official Journal of the European Union, 2010/C 115/01, 4 May, 2010.

  50. 50.

    European Union, “Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model,” 8.

  51. 51.

    European Council, “The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens,” 10.

  52. 52.

    European Commission. “FP7-SEC-2013-1 Call Fiche, 10 July.” 2012, 10.

  53. 53.

    European Commission. “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level.” 2012.

  54. 54.

    Geyer, “Taking Stock: Databases and Systems of Information Exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.”; Elspeth Guild and Sergio Carrera, “The European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On,” in The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On: Successes and Future Challenges Under the Stockholm Programme, ed. Elspeth Guild, Sergio Carrera, and Alejandro Eggenschwiler (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2010).

  55. 55.

    Lisa Stengel and Michael Nagenborg. “Reconstructing European Ethics. How does a Technology Become an Ethical Issue at the Level of the EU? ETICA Deliverable 3.2.2 Annex I.” undated, 2.

  56. 56.

    Burgess, “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research,” 2.

  57. 57.

    see for instance Mark B. Salter, ed. Politics at the Airport (Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2008); Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala, eds., Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11 (London/New York: Routledge, 2008); Torin Monahan, ed. Surveillance and Society. Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life (New York/London: Routledge, 2006); David Lyon, ed. Theorizing Surveillance. The Panopticon and Beyond (Cullompton/Portland: Willan, 2006); Louise Amoore and Marieke de Goede, eds., Risk and the War on Terror (London/New York: Routledge, 2008).

  58. 58.

    Burgess, “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research,” 2.

  59. 59.

    for a comprehensive account, see Jeremy Waldron, “Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance,” Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (2003).

  60. 60.

    J. Peter Burgess. “The Societal Impact of Security Research, PRIO Policy Brief 09/2012.” 2012.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/security/about-security_en.html (last accessed 9 January 2014).

  63. 63.

    Burgess, “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research.”

  64. 64.

    European Commission, “FP7-SEC-2013-1 Call Fiche, 10 July.”

  65. 65.

    European Commission, “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level,” ch. 2.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., 20.

  67. 67.

    European Court of Human Rights/Council of Europe. “European Convention on Human Rights.” 2010.

  68. 68.

    European Union, “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

  69. 69.

    European Commission, “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level,” 20.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Iván Székely, Máté Dániel Szabó, and Beatrix Vissy, “Regulating the Future? Law, Ethics, and Emerging Technologies,” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9 (2011): 183.

  72. 72.

    European Commission, “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level,” 24.

  73. 73.

    see for instance Ann Cavoukian. “Privacy by Design. Available at http://www.privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2009/01/privacybydesign.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014).” 2009; Ann Cavoukian, Scott Taylor, and Martin E. Abrams, “Privacy by Design: Essential for Organizational Accountability and Strong Business Practices,” Identity in the Information Society 3 (2010).

  74. 74.

    European Security Research & Innovation Forum, “ESRIF Final Report, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/files/esrif_final_report_en.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014),” 31.

  75. 75.

    Cavoukian, Taylor, and Abrams, “Privacy by Design: Essential for Organizational Accountability and Strong Business Practices,” 405.

  76. 76.

    Cavoukian, “Privacy by Design. Available at http://www.privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2009/01/privacybydesign.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014).”

  77. 77.

    European Commission, “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level,” 26.

  78. 78.

    European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Action Plan for an Innovative and Competitive Security Industry,” 11.

  79. 79.

    Bart Custer et al., eds., Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society: Data Mining and Profiling in Large Databases (Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer, 2013); Charu C. Aggarwal and Philip S. Yu, eds., Privacy-Preserving Data Mining: Models and Algorithms (New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2008).

  80. 80.

    Cavoukian, Taylor, and Abrams, “Privacy by Design: Essential for Organizational Accountability and Strong Business Practices,” 406.

  81. 81.

    Peter Schaar, “Privacy by Design,” Identity in the Information Society 3 (2010): 267–8.

  82. 82.

    European Security Research Advisory Board, “Meeting the Challenge: the European Security Research Agenda. A Report from the European Security Research Advisory Board,” 8.

  83. 83.

    Aggarwal and Yu, Privacy-Preserving Data Mining: Models and Algorithms.

  84. 84.

    Charu C. Aggarwal. “On Randomization, Public Information and the Curse of Dimensionality.” Paper presented at IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering, Istanbul, 11–15 April, http://charuaggarwal.net/curse.pdf, 2007; Charu C. Aggarwal and Philip S. Yu. “On Variable Constraints in Privacy Preserving Data Mining.” Paper presented at SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Newport Beach, 21–23 April, http://charuaggarwal.net/aggar140.pdf, 2005.

  85. 85.

    Friedewald et al., “Privacy, Data Protection and Emerging Sciences and Technologies: Towards a Common Framework,” 61.

References

  • Aggarwal, Charu C. “On Randomization, Public Information and the Curse of Dimensionality.” Paper presented at IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering, Istanbul, 11–15 April, http://charuaggarwal.net/curse.pdf, 2007.

  • Aggarwal, Charu C., and Philip S. Yu. “On Variable Constraints in Privacy Preserving Data Mining.” Paper presented at SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Newport Beach, 21–23 April, http://charuaggarwal.net/aggar140.pdf, 2005.

  • Aggarwal, Charu C., and Philip S. Yu, eds. Privacy-Preserving Data Mining: Models and Algorithms. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, Irwin. “Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific?”. Journal of Social Issues 33 (1977): 66–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amoore, Louise. “Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror.” Antipode 41 (2009): 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amoore, Louise, and Marieke de Goede, eds. Risk and the War on Terror. London/New York: Routledge, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Colin J. “What Happens When You Book an Airline Ticket? The Collection and Processing of Passenger Data Post-9/11.” In Global Surveillance and Policing. Borders, Security, Identity, edited by Elia Zureik and Mark B. Salter, 113–38. Cullompton/Portland: Willan, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, Didier, and Julien Jeandesboz. “The EU and the European Security Industry: Questioning the ‘Public-Private Dialogue’. INEX Policy Brief No. 5.” 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, Didier, and Anastassia Tsoukala, eds. Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11. London/New York: Routledge, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J. Peter. “Ethical Review and the Value(s) of Security Research.” Paper presented at the Workshop Ethical Issues in Security Research – a Practical Approach, Brussels, 29 September, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J. Peter. “The Societal Impact of Security Research, PRIO Policy Brief 09/2012.” 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, Ann. “Privacy by Design. Available at http://www.privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2009/01/privacybydesign.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014).” 2009.

  • Cavoukian, Ann, Scott Taylor, and Martin E. Abrams. “Privacy by Design: Essential for Organizational Accountability and Strong Business Practices.” Identity in the Information Society 3 (2010): 405–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custer, Bart, Toon Calders, Bart Schermer, and Tal Zarsky, eds. Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society: Data Mining and Profiling in Large Databases. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hert, Paul, and Rocco Bellanova. Transatlantic Cooperation on Travelers’ Data Processing: From Sorting Countries to Sorting Individuals. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pauw, Evelien, Paul Ponsaers, Kees van der Vijver, Willy Bruggeman, and Piet Deelman, eds. Technology-led Policing. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn/Portland: Maklu, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECORYS. “Study on the Competitiveness of the EU Security Industry. Within the Framework Contract for Sectoral Competitiveness Studies – ENTR/06/054: Final Report.” 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact Assessment. Accompanying the Communication from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’.” SEC(2011) 1427 final, 30 November, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.” COM(2011) 808 final, 30 November, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Action Plan for an Innovative and Competitive Security Industry.” COM(2012) 417 final, 26 July, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020: A strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.” COM(2010) 2020 final, 3 March, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level.” 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “EU Security Research: Safeguarding Society, Boosting Growth.” 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “FP7-SEC-2013-1 Call Fiche, 10 July.” 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Rules for the Participation and Dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020)’.” COM(2011) 810 final, 30 November, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. “The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens.” Official Journal of the European Union, 2010/C 115/01, 4 May, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights/Council of Europe. “European Convention on Human Rights.” 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Security Research & Innovation Forum. “ESRIF Final Report, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/files/esrif_final_report_en.pdf (last accessed 26 February 2014).” 2009.

  • European Security Research Advisory Board. “Meeting the Challenge: the European Security Research Agenda. A Report from the European Security Research Advisory Board.” 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Security: High Level Study on Threats Responses and Relevant Technologies. “Deliverable D6-1 (Final Report): New European Approaches to Counter Terrorism, 21 March.” 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” 2000/C 364/01, 18 December, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. “Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model.” 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedewald, Michael, David Wright, Serge Gutwirth, and Emilio Mordini. “Privacy, Data Protection and Emerging Sciences and Technologies: Towards a Common Framework.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 23 (2010): 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, Florian. “Taking Stock: Databases and Systems of Information Exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.” Challenge Research Paper No. 9 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Group of Personalities in the Field of Security Research. “Research for a Secure Europe. Report of the Group of Personalities in the Field of Security Research.” 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, Elspeth, and Sergio Carrera. “The European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On.” In The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On: Successes and Future Challenges Under the Stockholm Programme, edited by Elspeth Guild, Sergio Carrera and Alejandro Eggenschwiler, 1–12. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Ben. Arming Big Brother: The EU’s Security Research Programme. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute/Statewatch, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Ben. NeoConOpticon. The EU Security-Industrial Complex. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute/Statewatch, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leese, Matthias. “Blurring the Dimensions of Privacy? Law Enforcement and Trusted Traveler Programs.” Computer Law & Security Review 29 (2013): 480–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. “Airports as Data Filters: Converging Surveillance Systems after September 11th.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 1 (2003): 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David, ed. Theorizing Surveillance. The Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton/Portland: Willan, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T., and Glenn W. Muschert. “Personal Information, Borders, and the New Surveillance Studies.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (2007): 375–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCue, Colleen. Data Mining and Predictive Analysis. Intelligence Gathering and Crime Analysis. Burlington/Oxford: Elsevier, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, Torin, ed. Surveillance and Society. Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life. New York/London: Routledge, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Priscilla M. “Response to Bennett: Also in Defence of Privacy.” Surveillance & Society 8 (2011): 497–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, Mark B., ed. Politics at the Airport. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaar, Peter. “Privacy by Design.” [In English]. Identity in the Information Society 3 (2010): 267–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel, Lisa, and Michael Nagenborg. “Reconstructing European Ethics. How does a Technology Become an Ethical Issue at the Level of the EU? ETICA Deliverable 3.2.2 Annex I.” undated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Székely, Iván, Máté Dániel Szabó, and Beatrix Vissy. “Regulating the Future? Law, Ethics, and Emerging Technologies.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9 (2011): 180–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukala, Anastassia. “Risk-focused Security Policies and Human Rights. The Impossible Symbiosis.” In Mapping Transatlantic Security Relations. The EU, Canada, and the War on Terror, edited by Mark B. Salter, 41–59. London/New York: Routledge, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, Govert. “The Trade-Off Model Between Privacy and Security From a Sociotechnical Perspective. Paper presented at Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference, Brussels, 22–24 January.” 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lieshout, Marc, Michael Friedewald, David Wright, and Serge Gutwirth. “Reconciling Privacy and Security.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 26 (2013): 119–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Otterlo, Martijn. “A Machine Learning View on Profiling.” In Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn. The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology, edited by Mireille Hildebrandt and Katja de Vries, 41–64. Milton Park/New York: Routledge, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, Jeremy. “Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (2003): 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westin, Alan F. “Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy.” Journal of Social Issues 59 (2003): 431–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, David. ”A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology.” Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2011): 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Matthias Leese

Authors
  1. Matthias Leese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Leese .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Faculty of Law and Criminology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 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), Faculty of Law and Criminology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul de Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leese, M. (2015). Privacy and Security – On the Evolution of a European Conflict. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P. (eds) Reforming European Data Protection Law. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation