Despite extensive criticisms of mass surveillance and mobilization by civil liberties and digital rights activists, surveillance has paradoxically been extended and legalized in the name of security. How do some democratic claims against surveillance appear to be normal and common-sense, whereas others are deemed unacceptable, even outlandish? Instead of starting from particular “logics” of either security or democracy, this paper proposes to develop a political sociology of disputes to trace how the relation between security and democracy is shaped by critique in practice. Disputes entail critique and demands for justification. They allow us to account for the constraints which govern whether an argument is deemed acceptable or improper; common-sensical or peculiar. We mobilize disputes in conjunction with Arjun Appadurai's reflections on “small numbers” in democracies in order to understand how justifications of surveillance for security enact a “rise in generality,” whereas critiques of digital surveillance that mobilize democratic claims enact a “descent into singularity.” To this purpose, we analyze public mobilizations against mass surveillance and challenges brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We draw on interviews with a range of actors involved in the disputes, the parties’ submissions, oral hearings, judgments, and public reports.

中文翻译：

---

让数字监控变得不可接受？安全、民主和争端的政治社会学

尽管公民自由和数字权利活动家对大规模监视和动员进行了广泛批评，但自相矛盾的是，监视以安全的名义被扩展和合法化。为什么一些反对监视的民主主张似乎是正常和常识，而另一些则被认为是不可接受的，甚至是古怪的？本文不从安全或民主的特定“逻辑”出发，而是提出发展一种争议的政治社会学，以追溯安全与民主之间的关系如何在实践中被批判所塑造。争议需要批评和要求辩护。它们使我们能够解释支配论点是否被视为可接受或不恰当的约束；常识或奇特的。我们与 Arjun Appadurai 一起调动争议 对民主国家中“少数人”的反思，以了解监控安全的正当性如何导致“普遍性上升”，而对动员民主主张的数字监控的批评则导致“陷入奇点”。为此，我们分析了公众动员反对大规模监视和向欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 提出的挑战。我们利用对涉及争议的一系列行为者的采访、当事方的意见、口头听证会、判决和公开报告。我们分析公众动员反对大规模监视和向欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 提出的挑战。我们利用对涉及争议的一系列行为者的采访、当事方的意见、口头听证会、判决和公开报告。我们分析公众动员反对大规模监视和向欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 提出的挑战。我们利用对涉及争议的一系列行为者的采访、当事方的意见、口头听证会、判决和公开报告。