Resisting Digital Surveillance Reform: The Arguments and Tactics of Communications Service Providers
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Communications surveillance in the UK has been an increasingly contentious issue since the early 2000s. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is the result of a long series of attempts by the UK government to reform communications surveillance legislation. The consultations on this legislation—and on its precursor, the Draft Communications Data Bill 2012—offer unique insight into how such efforts generate resistance to surveillance. This article draws attention to the role of communications service providers (CSPs)—who are increasingly being responsibilised to collect and retain communications data—within a multi-actor network of resistance. It also identifies the reasons CSPs gave for resisting these proposed reforms. Content analysis of the consultation documents reveals three themes that were central to the CSPs’ arguments: technology, territory, and trust. The article concludes by considering the implications for understanding resistance to contemporary digital surveillance.
Article Details
Surveillance & Society uses a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
- The author. The author licenses the article to the Surveillance Studies Network (SSN) for inclusion in Surveillance & Society (S&S), right of first publication. The copyright to the article remains with the author and any subsequent commercial reuse must be agreed by both parties.
- Non-commercial Users. SSN authorises all persons to use material published in S&S in any manner that is not primarily intended for or directed to commerical advantage or private monetary compensation, also provided that it is not modified and retains all attribution notices.
- Commercial Users. SSN retains the right to benefit from commerical reuse, in each specific case subject to the agreement of the author, and payment to SSN of a standard per-page fee (set by a vote of the Network and Editorial Board) by the Commercial User.
- Surveillance & Society supports open access archives and the free distribution of the results of academic work. Authors are encouraged to place copies of the final published version of their article in their university and / or other open access archives. We only ask that you make sure to include a link to the original published version on the Surveillance & Society website.
References
Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Akdeniz, Yaman, Nick Taylor, and Clive Walker. 2001. BigBrother.gov.uk: State Surveillance in the Age of Information and Rights. Criminal Law Review February: 73-90.
Anderson, David. 2015. A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review. London: HMSO.
Asthana, Anushka and Sam Levin. 2017. UK Urges Tech Giants to Do More to Prevent Spread of Extremism, The Guardian, August 1.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/01/uk-urges-tech-giants-to-do-more-to-prevent-spread-of-extremism. [accessed August 2017]
Barnes, Anthony. 2013. Edward Snowden Warns over Global Threat to Privacy during Channel 4’s Alternative Christmas Message. The Independent, December 24. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowden-warns-over-global-threat-to-privacy-during-channel-4-s-alternative-christmas-message-9024541.html [accessed July 2017]
Bell, David. 2009. Surveillance is Sexy, Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 203-212.
Bennett, Colin. 2008. The Privacy Advocates: Resisting the Spread of Surveillance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bernal, Paul. 2016. Data Gathering, Surveillance, and Human Rights: Recasting the Debate. Journal of Cyber Policy 1 (2): 243-264.
Bowcott, Owen. 2015. High Court Rules Data Retention and Surveillance Legislation Unlawful. The Guardian, July 17.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/data-retention-and-surveillance-legislation-ruled-unlawful [accessed July 2017]
Bright, Jon and José R. Agustina. 2013. Mediating Surveillance: The Developing Landscape of European Online Copyright Infringement. Journal of Contemporary European Research 9 (1): 120-137.
Burris, Scott, Peter Drahos, and Clifford Shearing. 2005. Nodal Governance. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 30: 30-58.
Clarke, Roger. 1988. Information Technology and Dataveillance. Communications of the ACM 31(5): 498-512.
Cohen, Stanley. 1985. Visions of Social Control. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Court of Justice of the European Union. 2014. C-293/12 and C-594/12. Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. Press Release No. 54/14. Luxembourg.
Cox, Josie. 2017. Amber Rudd to ‘Urge Tech Companies in Silicon Valley’ to Do More to Crack Down on Terrorism. The Independent, July 31. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/amber-rudd-silicon-valley-terrorism-attack-crackdown-tech-companies-home-secretary-you-tube-facebook-a7868691.html [accessed September 2017]
Dupont, Benoit. 2003. Public Entrepreneurs in the Field of Security: An Oral History of Australian Police Commissioners. Paper presented at In Search of Security: An International Conference on Policing and Security. Montreal, QC: Law Commission of Canada.
Dupont, Benoit. 2006. Power Struggles in the Field of Security: Implications for Democratic Transformation. In Democracy, Society and the Governance of Security, edited by Jennifer Wood and Benoit Dupont. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
EPIC. 2018. The CLOUD Act. https://epic.org/privacy/cloud-act/ [accessed March 2018]
Fernandez, Luis A., and Laura Huey. 2009. Is Resistance Futile? Thoughts on Resisting Surveillance. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 199-202.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Press.
Franklin, Sharon Bradford. 2018. The Microsoft-Ireland Case: A Supreme Court Preface to the Congressional Debate. Lawfare. Thursday, February 22. https://www.lawfareblog.com/microsoft-ireland-case-supreme-court-preface-congressional-debate [accessed March 2018]
Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge.
Garland, David. 1996. The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society. British Journal of Criminology 36 (4): 445-471.
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman, and Dominic Rushe. 2013. Microsoft Handed the NSA Access to Encrypted Messages. The Guardian. July 12. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data [accessed July 2013]
Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson. 2000. The Surveillant Assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology 51 (4): 605-622.
Hansard. 2014. House of Lords Debate 2014-15, vol. 755, col. 641.
Hern, Alex. 2017. UK Government Can Force Encryption Removal, but Fears Losing, Experts Say. The Guardian, March 29. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/29/uk-government-encryption-whatsapp-investigatory-powers-act [accessed Apr 2017]
HM Government. 2011. CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism. London: The Stationery Office.
Holpuch, Amanda. 2016. Tim Cooks Says Apple’s Refusal to Unlock iPhone for FBI is a ‘Civil Liberties’ Issue. The Guardian, February 22. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/22/tim-cook-apple-refusal-unlock-iphone-fbi-civil-liberties. [Accessed Feb 2018]
Hosenball, Mark. 2017. Rudd Asks Silicon Valley to Do More to Counter Militants, Reuters, July 31.https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security/rudd-asks-silicon-valley-to-do-more-to-counter-militants-idUKKBN1AG162 [accessed August 2017]
Intelligence and Security Committee. 2015. Privacy and Security: A Modern Transparent Legal Framework. London: HMSO.
Introna, Lucas and Amy Gibbons. 2009. Networks and Resistance: Investigating Online Advocacy Networks as a Modality for Resisting State Surveillance. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 233-258.
Johnston, Les and Clifford Shearing. 2003. Governing Security: Explorations in Policing and Justice. London: Routledge.
Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. 2012a. Draft Communications Data Bill: Report, together with appendices and formal minutes. London: The Stationery Office.
Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill 2012b. Draft Communications Data Bill: Session 2012-13, Oral Evidence. London: The Stationery Office.
Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. 2012c. Draft Communications Data Bill: Session 2012-13, Written Evidence. London: The Stationery Office.
Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill. 2016a. Draft Investigatory Powers Bill: Oral Evidence. London: The Stationery Office.
Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill 2016b. Draft Investigatory Powers Bill: Written Evidence. London: The Stationery Office.
Justice. 2011. Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age. http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/305/JUSTICE-Freedom-from-Suspicion-Surveillance-Reform-for-a-Digital-Age.pdf [accessed August 2013]
Kirkup, James. 2008. Phones Tapped at the Rate of 1,000 a Day. The Telegraph, January 29. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576937/Phones-tapped-at-the-rate-of-1000-a-day.html [accessed July 2013]
Mann, Steve, Jason Nolan, and Barry Wellman. 2003. Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments. Surveillance & Society 1 (3): 331-355.
Martin, Aaron K., Rosamunde E. van Brakel, and Daniel J. Bernhard. 2009. Understanding Resistance to Digital Surveillance: Towards a Multi-Disciplinary, Multi-Actor Framework. Surveillance and Society 6 (3): 213-232.
Marx, Gary T. 2003. A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralising and Resisting the New Surveillance. Journal of Social Issues 59 (2): 369-390.
Marx, Gary T. 2009. A Tack in the Shoe and Taking off the Shoe: Neutralisation and Counter-Neutralisation Dynamics. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 294-306.
Matsakis, Louise. 2018. Microsoft’s Supreme Court Case Has Big Implications for Data. Wired, February 27.https://www.wired.com/story/us-vs-microsoft-supreme-court-case-data/ [accessed March 2018]
Michaels, Jon D. 2010. Deputizing Homeland Security. Texas Law Review 88: 1435-1473.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.
Naughton, John. 2015. Don’t Trust Your Phone, Don’t Trust Your Laptop—This is the Reality that Snowden Has Shown Us. The Guardian, March 8. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/edward-snowden-trust-phone-laptop-sim-cards [accessed April 2015]
Ohm, Paul. 2009. The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance. University of Illinois Law Review. 1417-1496.
Open Rights Group. 2016. Investigatory Powers Act is UK’s most extreme surveillance law. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/2016/investigatory-powers-act-most-extreme-surveillance-law.
Open Rights Group. 2018. Investigatory Powers Act 2016, Open Rights Group Wiki.https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016.
Powles, Julia. 2014. UK’s Drip Law: Cynical, Misleading, and an Affront to Democracy, The Guardian, July 18. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/18/uk-drip-ripa-law-sceptical-misleading-democracy-martha-lane-fox [accessed October 2014.]
Prince, Rosa. 2008. Jacqui Smith Plans Broad New ‘Big Brother’ Surveillance Powers. Daily Telegraph. October 15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3202766/Jacqui-Smith-plans-broad-new-Big-Brother-surveillance-powers.html [accessed April 2014.]
Rainie, Lee. 2016. The State of Privacy in Post-Snowden America. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/ [accessed February 2018]
Royal United Services Institute. 2015. A Democratic License to Operate: Report of the Independent Surveillance Review. London: Stephen Austin and Sons
Sanchez, Andrés. 2009. Facebook Feeding Frenzy: Resistance-through-Distance and Resistance-through-Persistence in the Societied Network. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 275-293.
Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo, and Ronan Paddison. (eds.). 2000. Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination and Resistance. London: Routledge
Shearing, Clifford and Philip Stenning. 1981. Modern Private Security: Its Growth and Implications. Crime and Justice 3: 193-245.
Shearing, Clifford and Philip Stenning. 1983. Private Security: Its Implications for Social Control. Social Problems 30: 125-138.
Shearing, Clifford and Philip Stenning. 1985. From the Panopticon to Disney World: The Development of Discipline. In Perspectives in Criminal Law, edited by Anthony N. Doob and Edward L. Greenspan. Toronto, ON: Canada Law Books.
Shearing, Clifford and Jennifer Wood. 2003. Nodal Governance, Democracy and the New ‘Denizens’. Journal of Law and Society 30 (3): 400-419.
Travis, Alan. 2015. Secret Report Urges Treaty Forcing US Web Firms’ Cooperation in Data Sharing. The Guardian, June 2.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/02/web-firms-data-sharing-secret-treaty [accessed April 2016]
Trottier, Daniel. 2012. Social Media as Surveillance: Rethinking Visibility in a Converging World. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Warren, Ian. 2015. Surveillance, Criminal Law, and Sovereignty. Surveillance & Society 13 (2): 300-305.
Wells, Helen. and David Wills. 2009. Individualism and Identity: Resistance to Speed Cameras in the UK. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 259-274.
Wood, Jennifer and Clifford Shearing. 2007. Imagining Security. Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Yadron, Danny. 2016. San Bernadino iPhone: US Ends Apple Case after Accessing Data without Assistance. The Guardian, March 29.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/28/apple-fbi-case-dropped-san-bernardino-iphone [accessed February 2018]
Zajko, Mike. 2016. Telecom Responsibilization: Internet Governance, Surveillance and New Roles for Intermediaries. Canadian Journal of Communication 41: 75-93.
Zittrain, Jonathan. 2003. Internet Points of Control. Boston College Law Review 44: 653-688.