Abstract
In this contribution, I will argue that the image of a balance is often used to defend the idea of a trade-off. To understand the drawbacks of this line of thought, I will explore the relationship between online security technologies and fundamental rights, notably privacy, nondiscrimination, freedom of speech and due process. After discriminating between three types of online security technologies, I will trace the reconfiguration of the notion of privacy in the era of smart environments. This will lead to an inquiry into the metaphor of the scale, building on the triple test regarding the justification of the limitation of fundamental rights such as privacy. The conclusion will be that in the case of a trade-off, infringing measures will have to be balanced by effective safeguards. No trade-off without balance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Surveillance studies generally focus on privacy and discrimination issues generated by surveillance techniques and technologies (see, e.g. the Surveillance Studies Network, at http://www.surveillance-studies.net/?page_id=119). This article starts with a brief assessment of security and other issues that may call for OSTs, before investigating their implications for our fundamental rights. On Latour’s ‘realistic realism’, which I would term ‘constructivist realism’, see Stalder (2000).
If the service of a Website selling shoes suffers an attack that causes disruption in its services, this impacts its availability and may even cause financial damages. But it does not impair anybody’s safety.
For instance, product liability for security vulnerabilities in software would create an entirely different incentive structure than the current one. At a more basic level, tort law and criminal liability—including the applicable law of evidence and burden of proof—determine who will invest up to what level in security measures.
For example, Piret (2008) on the historical significance of the concept of sovereignty, articulated as a critique of Hannah Arendt’s critique of sovereignty. Though I do not necessarily agree with Piret on all accounts, I believe we should acknowledge that the enforcement of safety, security and human rights protection to a large extent still depends on the monopoly of violence within sovereign states (see also Hildebrandt (2013)).
This may seem a rather strong claim. However, if our inner life is constituted by our capacity to ‘speak our mind’ after being ‘spoken to’, then another’s knowledge of our inner self may indeed be both invasive and destructive (e.g.Hudson 2005).
Art. 8.5 of the current Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC already sums up a set of conditions that applies when criminal convictions or related security measures are at stake (the same conditions return in art. 9.2(j) of the GDPR. Under the current Directive, however, these data have not been qualified explicitly as personal data whose processing is prohibited.
On different theories concerning the difference between rights and interests (e.g. Edmundson 2004).
This is related to the fact that contract theory concerns the institution of the monopoly of violence, that is only acceptable insofar as the state actually manages to protect its subjects from violent attack. On the complexities of, e.g. the right of resistance in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau (e.g. Johari 1987, p. 388).
In the context of anti-terrorism measures such as anti-money laundering, see, e.g. Passas (2006).
References
Agre, P. E., & Rotenberg, M. (2001). Technology and privacy: the new landscape (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Privacy personal space territory crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 284–292. doi:10.1038/nrn2795.
Bendrath, R. (2009). Global technology trends and national regulation. Explaining Variation in the Governance of Deep Packet Inspection. Conference paper at International Studies Annual Convention New York City, 15–18 February 2009. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/bendrath/Paper_Ralf-Bendrath_DPI_v1-5.pdf
Bennett, C. J., & Lyon, D. (2008). Playing the identity card: surveillance, security and identification in global perspective. London: Routledge.
Brenner, S. W. (2007a). History of computer crime. In K. De Leeuw & J. Bergstra (Eds.), The History of Information Security (pp. 705–721). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Brenner, S. W. (2007b). Law in an era of ‘smart’ technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Custers, B., Calders, T., Schermer, B., & Zarsky, T. (Eds.). (2013). Discrimination and privacy in the information society. Berlin: Springer.
De Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2009). Data protection in the case law of strasbourg and luxembourg: constitutionalism in action. In S. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, P. De Hert, S. Nouwt, & C. de Terwangne (Eds.), Reinventing data protection? (pp. 3–44). Dordrecht: Springer.
DeNardis, L. (2007). A history of interent security. In K. De Leeuw, J. Bergstra (Eds.), The History of Information Security (pp. 681–704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Edmundson, W. A. (2004). An introduction to rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenstein, E. (2005). The printing revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gandy, O. H., Jr. (2000). Exploring identity and identification in cyberspace. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 14, 1085.
Geisler, D. M. (1985). Modern Interpretation theory and competitive forensics: understanding hermeneutic text. The National Forensic Journal, III, 71–79.
Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1963). The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5(3), 304–345.
Gürses, S., Berendt, B., Santen, T. (2006). Multilateral security requirements analysis for preserving privacy in ubiquitous environments. In Proceedings of the UKDU Workshop (pp. 51–64).
Hediger, H. (1970). Man and animal in the zoo: zoo biology. London: Routledge.
Hildebrandt, M. (2010). The indeterminacy of an emergency: challenges to criminal jurisdiction in constitutional democracy. Criminal Law and Philosphy, 4(2), 161–181.
Hildebrandt, M. (2011). Legal protection by design. Legisprudence, 5(2), 223–248.
Hildebrandt, M. (2013). Extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce in cyberspace. Toronto Law Journal, 63(2), 196–224 (Focus Feature: Criminal Jurisdiction: Comparison, History, Theory).
Hildebrandt, M., & De Vries, K. (Eds.). (2013). Privacy, due process and the computational turn: the philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (pp. 196–224). Abingdon: Routledge.
Hildebrandt, M., & Gutwirth, S. (Eds.). (2008). Profiling the European citizen. Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hudson, B. (2005). Secrets of the self: punishment and the right to privacy. In E. Claes & A. Duff (Eds.), Privacy and the criminal law (pp. 137–161). Antwerp: Intersentia.
Johari, J. C. (1987). Contemporary political theory: new dimensions, basic concepts and major trends. New York: Sterling.
Langheinrich, M. (2001). Privacy by design—principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In Proc. 3rd. Int’l Conf. Ubquitous Computing (pp. 273–291). Berlin: Springer.
Leawoods, H. (2000). Gustav Radbruch: an extraordinary legal philosopher. Journal of Law and Policy, 2, 489–516.
Leeuw, K. M. M. de, Bergstra, J. (Eds.) (2007). The history of information security: a comprehensive handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lévy, P. (1990). Les technologies de l’intelligence. L’avenir de la pensée à l’ère informatique. Paris: La Découverte.
Luhmann, N. (1996). Social systems. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
McStay, A. (2011). The mood of information: a critique of online behavioural advertising. New York: Continuum.
Murphy, E. R., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4–5), 293–302.
Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. London/New York: Methuen.
Parsons, T. (1991). The social system (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
Passas, N. (2006). Fighting terror with error: the counter-productive regulation of informal value transfers. Crime, Law and Social Change, 45(4–5), 315–336.
Piret, J.-M. (2008). Politics, sovereignty and cosmopolitanism in times of globalisation. Archiv Fur Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie, 94(4), 477–497.
Radbruch, G. (1950) Legal Philosophy. In: E. Lask and C. Wilk (eds.), The legal philosophies of Lask, Radbruch and Dabin. Translated by Kurt Wilk, with an introduction by E. W. Patterson (pp. 43–224). Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Ricoeur, P. (1973). The model of the text: meaningful action considered as a text. New Literary History, 5(1), 91–117.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Schauer, F. (2001). Free speech and the social construction of privacy. Social Research, 68(1), 221–232.
Schneier, B. (2006). Beyond fear. Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. Berlin: Springer.
Sommer, P., Brown, I. (2011). Reducing systemic cybersecurity risk. (IFP/WKP/FGS(2011)3) OECD.
Sottiaux, S. (2008). Terrorism and the limitation of rights. The ECHR and the US Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stalder, F. (2000). Beyond constructivism: towards a realistic realism. A review of Bruno Latour’s Pandora’s Hope. The Information Society, 16(3), 245–247.
Stalder, F. (2002) The failure of privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) and the voiding of privacy. In Sociological Research Online. 7 (2).
Steinbock, D. J. (2005). Data matching, data mining and due process. Georgia Law Review, 40(1), 1–84.
Symantec, Internet Security Threat Report (2011) Trends (volume 17, April 2012). Available at http://www.symantec.com/threatreport/. Accessed 9th November 2012
Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: the image of balance. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191–210. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00174.
Warren, S., Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. In Harvard Law Review. 193(7).
Watney, M. (2012). Cybercrime regulation at a cross-road: state and transnational laws versus global laws. In: 2012 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society) (71–75).
Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wolf, M. (2008). Proust and the squid: the story and science of the reading brain. London: Icon Books.
Wolk, S. (2012). Filtering and blocking of copyright infringement works—a European perspective. Rochester: Social Science Research Network (SSRN Scholarly Paper Nr. ID 2186751).
Zedner, L. (2009). Security. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hildebrandt, M. Balance or Trade-off? Online Security Technologies and Fundamental Rights. Philos. Technol. 26, 357–379 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0104-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0104-0